Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MR. SPEAKER (LEAVE OF ABSENCE)

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that the University of Southampton, my own university, proposes to do me the honour of conferring on me the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws on Friday 8th July. I therefore ask the indulgence of the House and leave of absence to enable me to attend the university for that purpose.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Electricity Generation

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current and prospective margins of unused capacity in the electrical generating industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): The electricity generating industry plans to have an adequate margin of generating plant in reserve to meet abnormally high demand in the event of severe weather and plant breakdown. Recently this margin has been higher than planned. The margin of plant on the Central Electricity Generating Board system over and above last winter's peak demand was 33 per cent. and it is expected to remain at about that level until the early 1980s.

Mr. Biffen: In view of this substantial margin of excess capacity over and above

what was planned, will the Minister and his colleagues pay high regard to that factor before yielding to the well-orchestrated lobby that is trying to persuade the Government to authorise the accelerated construction of Drax B power station?

Mr. Eadie: The ordering of Drax B must be seen in the context of the need to preserve a healthy manufacturing capability in this country. The margin has been 20 per cent. during the past few years. However, the industry considers that a higher margin is now justified and has endorsed an increase to 28 per cent., which will be reviewed by the Government in two years' time. At high peak demand, the service capacity with these margins of safety is 5 per cent.

Mr. Palmer: Does the Minister agree that the trouble with the electricity supply industry is that it has too much coal and not enough electrical load? Should not steps be taken by the Department to create a proper pricing policy to obtain more load for the electricity supply industry?

Mr. Eadie: The matter—as my hon. Friend has put it—of too much coal and reduced demand is a factor that the House has debated before. My hon. Friend is well aware of that. However, with expansion in the economy demand will begin to pick up and we may be grateful for the fact that we have this spare capacity.

Mr. Gray: Is the Minister aware that our potential export markets are having their confidence undermined by the complete lack of decision on the part of the Government in this matter? How long does the Cabinet require to study the relevant documents before reaching a conclusion?

Mr. Eadie: It has been announced that a decision will be taken as quickly as possible. It is a difficult decision. It is not entirely true that export markets are being undermined. There is a worldwide difficulty about demand and potential.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures show a modest upturn in electricity demand and that, therefore, he is right in believing that the sort of margins that there have been recently may not last long? Is he further aware that the debate on Drax B


is about the long-term future of an industry, not about a short-term problem which I hope we shall shortly overcome?

Mr. Eadie: The arguments that my hon. Friend has described are about the capability of the manufacturing capacity of the industry.

British Gas Corporation

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the Chairman of the British Gas Corporation.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I last met the Chairman of the Corporation at the BNOC board meeting on Friday 24th June.

Mr. Neubert: Does the Secretary of State support the competitive advantage of North Sea gas? Would it not be a breach of faith with the public and a conspiracy against the consumer if the price of gas were forced up to offset the increasing cost to electricity of the miners' poor productivity and excessive pay claims?

Mr. Benn: To the best of my knowledge, no such proposal has been made.

Nuclear Reactors

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what period of time he anticipates will elapse between the reports being received by him from the Nuclear Power Company and the National Nuclear Inspectorate, and his Department's decision on the choice of the nextthermal nuclear reactor.

Mr. Benn: I expect to receive the reports shortly and I shall want to study them carefully. I recognise the need for an early decision.

Mr. Rost: As the Secretary of State has now sacked his Chief Scientist, Dr. Walter Marshall, because he had been advising the right hon. Gentleman to make an early decision rather than to procrastinate about the nuclear future, can he give an assurance that he will not dismiss everybody whenever they disagree with him?

Mr. Benn: As the hon. Gentleman knows better than I, Dr. Walter Marshall's appointment as chief adviser was on the basis that he would not advise the Secre-

tary of State on nuclear matters, for the reason that Sir John Hill, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, is the chief nuclear adviser to the Government.
As for the reports, I am waiting for them. I commissioned them last year, and it will clearly not be possible to reach a decision until the Nuclear Inspectorate has reported on safety and until industrial companies have indicated their views.

Mr. Skeet: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he chooses the AGR it will have no export potential? Will he consider this point so that British industry may be safeguarded and build the appropriate type of reactors and the necessary machinery in the future?

Mr. Benn: I am aware of the campaigns going on on both sides of this argument. There is a strong campaign for the light water reactor, which has been going on for some time, based upon the export orders for other light water reactors. I am also well aware of the fact that our formidable achievements have been via the gas-cooled route, through the Magnox and gas-cooled stations. The reason why I am awaiting the reports so anxiously and am anxious to reach as early a decision as possible is that I want to have the considered view of the industry as well as the Nuclear Inspectorate on this matter.

Mr. Emery: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, while he drags his feet and does not go forward with further orders for a fast breeder, we are losing out to the French and others in many areas throughout the world where there are great potential earnings? Is he aware that he must come to a decision quickly?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been no delay whatever in the fast breeder programme. The rate of spend that I have authorised in the two years I have been Secretary of State has been sufficient to keep the fast breeder programme going. The fast breeder at Dounreay is the finest in the world, well ahead of the Phoenix which the French have built. There is no doubt in my mind that British fast breeder technology is of the highest order to be found anywhere in the world. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, following the


Flowers Report, the Government issued a statement describing in detail how they would handle the question of ordering the CFR1.

Mr. Gray: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is his credibility which is at stake, because this is only one of the many decisions which he has not taken and which the public are awaiting? Has it not occurred to him that if he does not start taking decisions quickly he may find himself having a sideways move like Dr. Marshall?

Mr. Benn: My credibility would be most totally destroyed if I announced what system we should adopt before I had had the advice of the Nuclear Inspectorate, which is a statutory body, and before I had consulted the industry. That supplementary question is totally meaningless. I have received helpful advice from many people, both on the fast breeder reactor and on the thermal reactor. I have received no advice whatever, as I would expect, from the Conservative Party.

Energy Savings (United States Discussions)

Mr. Macfarlane: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what contacts his Department has had with the Carter Administration on the subject of energy savings.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Dr. John A. Cunningham): As the House knows, my right hon. Friend visited the United States from 3rd to 6th April for discussions and met Dr. Schlesinger and others. Officials of my Department have frequent meetings with United States officials on many aspects of energy policy, including energy savings.

Mr. Macfarlane: Following the meetings which the right hon. Gentleman had with United States energy officials, may I ask the Under-Secretary to urge upon his right hon. Friend the need to introduce a co-ordinated energy-saving strategy in the United Kingdom, not identical with but similar to that which has been introduced in the United States, bearing in mind that all that this country has had so far is a rather disgraceful and expensive "Save it" campaign?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman should not confuse President Carter's speech with a policy. We already have a co-ordinated policy in the United Kingdom and, far from what the hon. Gentleman says about a wasteful "Save it" campaign, we have a wide range of measures, as he well knows, in industry and in the domestic sector. My right hon. Friend made clear in the House a few weeks ago that we are currently reviewing our energy conservation policy with a view to improving that where possible.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States grants and loans are specifically provided for domestic premises, with the aim of bringing 90 per cent. of American homes up to the necessary insulation standards? Is he further aware that one of the means by which this is being done is through the electricity companies? Will he initiate discussions with our own electricity authorities with a view to operating a similar system, whereby improvements are carried out by the electricity authorities and recouped later by payments from the consumer?

Dr. Cunningham: I am aware of the points to which the hon. Member refers and of various other schemes in other countries. We are looking at these with great interest. I am currently engaged in a round of discussions with the nationalised industries and the oil industry in the private sector to see how best we can co-ordinate our efforts on a voluntary basis to deal with conservation measures.

Mr. Forman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that perhaps the best comment so far on the Government's conservation programme came from his right hon. Friend the Minister of State when replying to a debate a little while ago? Is he aware that it was obvious from his right hon. Friend's remarks that he and the Department feel contrite and apologetic about the lack of success that has been achieved so far? Would not this explain the need to look at the programme again?

Dr. Cunningham: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State can answer for himself. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest that the remarks to which he refers mean that we are not well aware of the need for conservation and the need to


strengthen our policies whenever possible, he is mistaken. From the energy elasticities report, Energy Paper 17, it was concluded that we saved about 6 per cent. of our primary energy requirements. That is a fairly good measure of success, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

European Community (British Presidency)

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give a report of his term as President of the Council of Energy Ministers.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on his term of office as President of the Council of Energy Ministers.

Mr. Benn: I made a statement on my term as President of the Council of Energy Ministers in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) on 30th June, when I also laid in the Library a copy of my published report on this subject.

Mr. Skeet: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. Brunner, in Edinburgh, referred to the "I'm all right, Jack" policy of the Government and the Secretary of State? Is he further aware that this presidential period has got us nowhere? We do not have JET as yet, we have not been able to get coal exports to Europe increased and, finally, we have not got a minimum selling price for oil. What has the right hon. Gentleman achieved? Nothing.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman will know that the JET matter is for the Research Council, not the Energy Council. He will also know that the coal issue was one on which we pressed strongly but without success. As for the minimum selling price, if the hon. Gentleman reads the report he will see that, apart from Euratom loans, coking coal and the work programme, Commissioner Brunner expressed himself as being well satisfied with the achievements of the past six months. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has read wrongly into that speech by Commissioner Brunner a criticism of our Presidency.

Mr. Tom King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our view on the Conservative side of the House is that

his term as President had just about the success we would expect when all his colleagues at the meetings knew that he was totally opposed to the idea of a European energy policy in any case? Is he further aware that we regard the failure to agree even on a site for the JET project as a major setback for a most important European research project? Although he says that this is a matter for the Research Council, is it not a fact that he appeared before that Council?

Mr. Benn: All I can say on the JET project is that one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the European Assembly demanded that JET be sited at Ispra. The British position has not been helped by the total lack of support for JET which has been evidenced by the Opposition.

Mr. Skeet: Not true.

Mr. Benn: There has been absolutely no support. The last time the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made a criticism of my Presidency, the example he cited was that during my Presidency the German courts had delayed the German nuclear programme. If he reads Hansard, he will find that his criticisms then were as foolish as those he has made today.

Mr. Kinnock: Is it not, as a general rule, a better principle for British Ministers to take an attitude of constructive criticism in the Common Market, as my right hon. Friend has done, rather than the meaningless and supine sell-out attitude towards British interests which would be adopted by the Euro-fanatics on the Tory side?

Mr. Benn: The attitude we have adopted is to work actively and constructively, to see all the Ministers, discuss with them and send regular reports, which I did, and at the same time, at the Council meetings, to put up a vigorous defence of our own interests, exactly as every other member country in the Community does. That is the right way to proceed. The three examples given by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) on JET, coal and MSP were examples of difficulties created by other members of the Community involving projects of great importance to this country.

Mr. Biffen: During his Presidency of the Council of Energy Ministers, did the


right hon. Gentleman form any impression as to whether there would be difficulties for his Government obtaining their objective of up to two-thirds of North Sea oil being refined in the United Kingdom as a result of anxiety on the part of the Commission or Continental Europeans that there should be consideration of a European context in oil refining?

Mr. Benn: Anyone who follows energy policy, as the House does, will know that there are conflicts of interest in each country between producers and consumers and difficulties in different areas. Those conflicts of interest present themselves internationally in exactly the same way as they do within a nation State. The basis upon which I would answer the hon. Gentleman's question is that I do not suppose for one moment that the Commission would seek to challenge the development of an oil policy in the United Kingdom dealing with refineries, landing rights, participation and the rôle of BNOC, which are so manifestly in the interests of the people of this country, any more than I was prepared to engage in public criticism of other member States when they found themselves unable to support things on the ground that they were contrary to their interests. The one thing that the hon. Gentleman will have noticed about my Presidency is that there has been not one word, publicly or by private briefing, of criticism of other nations that have stood up for their own interests.

Mr. Hardy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the first two supplementary questions that we have had from the Opposition suggest not merely that the national interest would be treated quite frivolously if they were in power, in general terms, but that they would be quite agreeable to the siting of JET elsewhere than at Culham? Will he explain to Opposition Members that they need to make their position abundantly clear on that matter?

Mr. Benn: I should be greatly helped if a firmer line were taken by the Opposition on the siting of JET and if there were firmer support and if my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, who took the chair at that very difficult meeting, in pursuit of perfectly legitimate and objective chairmanship, had not been in receipt of a rain of

criticism for handling a difficult matter with considerable skill.

British National Oil Corooration

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the British National Oil Corporation to discuss further participation in the oil industry.

Mr. Benn: I have very frequent meetings with the Chairman of BNOC, the most recent of which was this morning, at which we discuss participation amongst other matters. I met the members of the Corporation in Glasgow on 24th June.

Mr. Canavan: As part of the reason for public participation in the oil industry is to ensure better employment prospects, will my right hon. Friend tell the BNOC and BP that it is absolutely intolerable that hundreds of workers' jobs are at risk in the offshore oil construction industry, on Clydeside and elsewhere, at a time when we hear reports that 500,000 man-hours of work for the Sullom Voe project are being done in yards in Holland?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend will know that when I was in Glasgow last Friday week I took the opportunity of having a meeting with the Offshore Supplies Office and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and the management and unions from John Brown Engineering. I followed that up with a meeting on the following Monday with BP, and further meetings took place during the course of the week. It is the function of the Offshore Supplies Office to see that full and fair opportunity allows British firms to compete. This is a continuing function of the Department and of the OSO. My hon. Friend will also know that in the case of Marathon an order for a rig was placed by BNOC, in pursuit of the objectives that he and I share.

Mr. Tom King: As the criticism referred to by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) originated from Mr. Gavin Laird, a director of BNOC, and was referred to by me during the energy debate, when I also drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that BNOC had not ordered a single British supply ship, what further investigation has the right hon. Gentleman made into the matter?

Mr. Benn: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in winding up the debate a few days ago, gave a very clear immediate answer, which was that BNOC inherited from the Burmah Oil Company—BODL—a pattern of use of supply ships. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said, immediate inquiries were initiated, and I shall inform the House of the results as soon as possible.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report which states that oil production will exceed requirements by 1979? In view of the great benefit to Britain that flows from this oil, will he give an assurance that there will be maximum participation in ownership of the offshore oilfields, and will he refuse the persistent Opposition demands to sell it off to foreign interests and oil companies abroad?

Mr. Benn: The fifth round licences, which were the first of the licences for which the British Government were responsible, are on the basis of a genuine 51 per cent. equity. Helped largely with the petroleum revenue tax and the royalty in oil, this will mean that 85 per cent. of the revenue from the fifth round licences will accrue to the British taxpayer and the British Treasury through the national oil account. That is not a bad achievement.

Mr. Rost: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that BNOC has made a request to him to have favourable treatment in the allocation of new licences? Will he further confirm that in no circumstances will he grant such an unfair trading concession, particularly as his predecessor gave a categorical assurance, not only to this House but to the industry, that this would not happen?

Mr. Benn: I referred to that matter in the debate last week, and the reference can be found in Hansard. The difference between the present position and the position some time ago is that we now have a State oil corporation, able and empowered by Act of Parliament to take part in every part of the oil business, here and abroad. If we are to make sense of the powers that we now have in the national interest, it would certainly be right for me to consider most seriously proposals for sole licences. No decision has yet been reached. It might be a very good way of develop-

ing a conservation policy which would allow us to know where the oil was and then develop it to suit our own national interests.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Sec retary of State for Energy if he will issue a direction to BNOC regarding its com pliance with the terms of the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): No, Sir. The jurisdiction orders operate, in those matters which they govern, independently of any policy adopted by BNOC and other licensees. No direction is needed.

Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister of State aware that the BNOC is operating in defiance of Parliament under the order by not using Scots law in relation to these oilfields, which clearly lie within Scottish jurisdiction of the North Sea? What is he going to do about this betrayal of the Scottish legal system, which was guaranteed by the Treaty of Union?

Dr. Mabon: No, Sir, I am not aware of that, because it is not true. The BNOC is perfectly at liberty, with the other companies concerned, to apply Scots law to its contracts, or English law, and it does so. If the hon. Gentleman has any information to the contrary, perhaps he will get in touch with me.

Fuel Bills (Low-Income Consumers)

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he proposes to re- introduce the scheme for selective assist ance to electricity consumers next winter; and if he will consider extending the scheme to cover other types of fuel and amend the qualifications so as to increase the number of beneficiaries.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: We are keeping under review the need for helping those on low incomes with the cost of fuel.

Mr. Ovenden: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is growing concern about the delay in announcing the Government's intentions about assistance towards fuel costs next winter? If he goes ahead with a scheme, as I very much hope he will, will he take account of the


criticisms made of last winter's scheme in view of the fact that it did not help those who are dependent upon coal or gas for the majority of heating costs and those who are just above supplementary benefit level and who, therefore, lost out entirely and were denied any assistance?

Dr. Cunningham: Gearly, we recognise that there is always concern about people on low incomes having to face high fuel bills, but to say that there is growing concern about an announcement is to overstate the case. We have just finished last winter's scheme. We have not yet had opportunity fully to review its working. But of course, if we can draw any lessons from the working of the scheme last winter and if we were to repeat it next winter, we should put them into practice wherever possible.

Mrs. Bain: When the hon. Gentleman analyses the reports on last year's scheme, will he look further particularly at those on the poverty line and those who face a conflict between claiming rent and rate rebates and supplementary benefit?

Dr. Cunningham: I am aware of the hon. Lady's interest in this point and that of other hon. Members. However, only a very small percentage of those who opt for rent or rate rebates fall into this borderline area. The overwhelming majority of people who are in receipt of rent or rate rebates have incomes substantially above the level for supplementary benefit.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Does not my hon.Friend agree that in addition to these very desirable special schemes it is absolutely essential to keep down nationalised industries' prices in the fuel sector for all consumers if we are to have a successful transition to phase 3 or whatever it is to be called?

Dr. Cunningham: The Government made a decision early in their life to move towards the economic pricing of fuel. That remains the position. Within that broad general position, it is important to ensure not only that the right decisions are made on investment and conservation grounds but that fuel is available to industrial and domestic consumers at prices they are able to afford.

Drax B Power Station

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will now invite the CEGB to place the order for the Drax B power station.

Mr. Benn: Discussions are continuing, but I recognise the need for an early decision.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that procrastination is now becoming a real threat to jobs and that there are overwhelming reasons for making this decision quickly? Can he confirm that competitive tendering for this order, which would delay work on the shop floor by up to two years, would not achieve the objective which was intended—that of saving jobs in the industry? Does he not agree that that would be nonsense which the Government should not entertain?

Mr. Benn: The energy case for Drax B is not in dispute. The problem is over the restructuring, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The question of competitive tendering is one that would have to await decision on the order itself. It is recognised that the previous Government, when Ince B was put out, did not engage in competitive tendering for similar reasons.

Mr. Mellish: Does my right hon. Friend remember that some time ago he gave an interview at a firm in my constituency, Babcock and Wilcox, which is the largest firm in London dealing with generating equipment and which involves 15,000 people? Is he aware that we were impressed with the way in which he handled that negotiation? Can he do something about the uncertainty that the decision on Drax B is creating for this and other firms because they do not know what the future holds for them?

Mr. Benn: I recall the visit to Babcock and Wilcox when I saw management and workers. I also went to see the plant at Renfrew. The problem arises not so much concerning the restructuring and the boiler-makers but on the more difficult questions involving the turbogenerator manufacturers. The Government can proceed only by trying to reach an agreement by consent between those concerned. The powers do not lie with


us to impose a solution. These are matters for the Secretary of State for Industry.

Mr. Gray: May we have clarification about competitive tendering? May I remind the Secretary of State that his Under-Secretary of State gave a categoric assurance to the House that there would be competitive tendering?

Mr. Benn: The record does not show that. The hon. Member is always reminding me that the nationalised industries themselves have prime powers in this matter. A decision about competitive tendering does not in the first instance lie with the Government. The hon. Member will also recall that in similar circumstances his Government thought it right not to go for competitive tendering. That is a very important precedent which must be uppermost in our minds.

Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his visit to Renfrew was extremely welcome? Does he recall that we exposed the job figures in relation to delays in the Drax B project and that with every day that passes further redundancies are being considered? Does he accept that redundancies must be avoided at all costs? Will he bring pressure on his colleagues and say that if the restructuring does not take place he must cut the Gordian knot and put the contract where everybody expects it to go—to the North-East and to Babcock and Wilcox in Renfrew?

Mr. Benn: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. I remember discussing the problem with him when I was in Renfrew. I am anxious that there should not be any playing off between the management and work forces of the companies concerned. They are all caught in the serious situation of a serious dip in ordering, and jobs are threatened. The research and development technology and management in all these centres, in turbo generating and boiler manufacturing, are of the highest world standards. It is important not to allow one group to be played off against the other while these matters are dealt with.

Oil Exploration (Celtic Sea)

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied

with progress to date in the exploration of the Celtic Sea for oil.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Although no discoveries have yet been made, exploration is still continuing. It would, however, be premature to attempt a realistic assessment of prospects at this stage.

Mr. Roberts: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that because the level of activity has been so low the licensees are unlikely to be able to complete their drilling programmes by the end of the licence period? Does not that cause him some concern? What will he do when the licence periods come to an end?

Dr. Mabon: The sad fact is that, of the seven wells that have been drilled so far, six have been failures. The findings on the seventh have not yet been released. Up to March next year 14 wells are due for drilling. It is for the licensees to decide on the prospects of those wells. The Government are keen to see some findings here—and I include Cardigan Bay in that area.

Nuclear Processing Orders

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the estimated probable cost of lost orders to British Nuclear Fuels from overseas processing contracts due to delays brought about by the present environmental inquiry.

Mr. Benn: I am advised that the value of potential overseas business for the proposed oxide reprocessing plant is some £600 million. Signature of these contracts has been delayed but I am not aware that any orders have been lost.

Mr. Palmer: May we have an assurance that once this inquiry is out of the way, and assuming that it is favourable to British Nuclear Fuels, the Government will stand solidly behind BNF—a State-owned company—in obtaining work in this country and in markets abroad?

Mr. Benn: I said precisely that on 12th March 1976. That is the position of the Government. The planning inquiry, which falls to the Secretary of State for the Environment, is under the control of different legislation. The delay in signing the contract is not confined to the United Kingdom. The French, who are co-signatories, have also not signed their contract with the Japanese.

Mr. Skeet: Is not the Minister aware that the French company Cogema can go ahead and sign the contract, although it has been deferred for the time being? Is he aware that if the hearing is too long delayed the French company might go ahead in any case?

Mr. Benn: I have heard a lot of rumours about this. With a contract of this magnitude at stake, I have gone out of my way, not only in discussions in Tokyo when the problem first arose but with the Japanese Ambassador in London on more than one occasion and with Japanese utilities, to assure them that it is not a delaying tactic. I have told them that we have to satisfy ourselves, under domestic legislation, that a matter of this magnitude is handled under proper planning procedures. I have also told the Japanese—and they fully understand—that as customers of Windscale we are in equal difficulties. The difficulties apply to them and to us. I think that that position is fully understood.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on these Benches, as well as outside the House, strongly support the Government in ensuring that an inquiry is carried out before a final commitment is made?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that he speaks for many who, without prejudice to one's attitude to British nuclear development, believe that it would be odd not to use planning procedures for the building of a big reprocessing plant when planning permission is needed to build an extension, a garage or a conservatory. I am grateful for that support.

Mr. Tom King: Since the Secretary of State for the Environment urged that this should be a speedy inquiry, and since there are Press reports that it might last until October, may we have an assurance that when the findings are made we shall have a direct decision? The Secretary of State will recall that we supported the setting up of the inquiry but urged that it should be completed quickly.

Mr. Benn: The one thing about which the House is agreed is that there should be no undue delay, but in addition—I am grateful to the House for this also—it is recognised that one could not have gone forward without a proper planning

inquiry. Without prejudice to what the outcome may be, there is no desire to delay matters, for many reasons and, in part, for the reason set out in my answer.

North Sea Divers

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent consultations he has had with representatives of North Sea divers.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I held a meeting with representatives of the Association of Offshore Diving Contractors on 16th June about the effects of the application of PAYE to divers who had previously been taxable under Schedule D.

Mr. Gray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the degree of insensitivity which has been shown by the Inland Revenue towards this group of extremely courageous and hard-working men is taxing their patience to the end? Since they have hitherto shown an extremely responsible attitude but this may now be in danger, will the right hon. Gentleman consider using his good offices in discussion with his Treasury colleagues with a view to having another look at the position in order that North Sea production shall not be interfered with in any way?

Dr. Mabon: Yes, Sir; I have already indicated, as has my right hon. Friend, that we ought to discuss these matters in view of the further representations which we have had from the association. I entirely agree that these are very brave men, there is a lot at stake for them, and damage could possibly result for our country. However, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Inland Revenue treatment of all citizens must be equitable and fair. I remind him of what happened in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill on 23rd June when my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary replied on this matter. I agree that the divers have shown a responsible attitude. All I would say to them is that, despite the representations, they ought to secure rights of appeal in as many individual cases as they can.

Mr. Emery: I declare a secondary interest here. Does not the Minister agree that if the Treasury does not somewhat alter its view there will be a serious possibility that we shall have to rely on


foreign nationals for diving work in the North Sea, that although the British divers are now probably more highly trained than any other divers in the world we may have to rely on others outside this country to meet the demand, particularly for saturation diving, and that, if that happens, it will be a major factor with consequences for our oil production in the years 1979, 1980 and 1981?

Dr. Mabon: Yes, Sir; I do not dissent from the view that it could have an adverse effect on certain diving activities, and we might have to rely more and more on foreign nationals to do this work in order to meet what is required. But I do not entirely agree wtih what the hon. Gentleman says about the effect on oil development. We have asked the companies and so far they have given no positive response that that is their view. However, we are actively in conversation with colleagues on the matter. But I return to what I said, that we must be absolutely clear that in Inland Revenue matters every citizen is treated equally.

Energy Commission

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he now expects to announce the appointment of the members of the Energy Commission.

Mr. Bean: I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) on 28th June. I shall make an announcement about the allocation of the seven non-producer seats on the Energy Commission as soon as possible.

Mr. Forman: In the light of that Written Answer and of the Government's comments in their response to the Flowers Report about the importance of adequate institutional arrangements to take account of the environmental side of energy developments, does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the environmental and conservationist elements are sufficiently represented on the Commission if they are outnumbered by at least two to one?

Mr. Benn: As the House recognised, it is a difficult matter. Everybody wanted to be on the Commission, and I therefore tried to reach a part-solution by making clear that the Commission documents would be made available so that no one would be at a disadvantage even if not

on the Commission. Others will be able to come. There are a large number of interests. There are the industrial interests and consumer interests. I may not be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman that all the interests about which he is concerned will be represented, but at least matters will be conducted openly and others will know what is happening and hence will be able to influence decisions before they are made.

Mr. Palmer: Will every legitimate technical interest be represented, including the technical staff in the electricity supply industry?

Mr. Benn: I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to the EPEA, of which he is a distinguished member, and he put his question in a very modest way. No doubt he would like to know whether he or his general secretary could be on the Commission. The problem is this. The trade union side—the TUC fuel and power committee—not itself wanting an enormous Commission, suggested that the trade unions should be represented by the six unions on the fuel and power committee which were also members of the General Council. I discussed this with my hon. Friend's general secretary and I believe that, although disappointed, he appreciates the problem. He will have the papers and will be able to go as and when necessary. I think that he understands the difficulty.

Mr. Tom King: Has the Secretary of State noticed the irony in his own speech last Tuesday when, while on the one hand boasting of the success of British offshore activity and the figures for oil production, on the other hand he announced the setting up of his Energy Commission and specifically excluded from the Commission any representation of the offshore operators which had been responsible for the successful development?

Mr. Benn: This is another case of someone who has a strong claim. On the other hand, as the hon. Gentleman knows, UKOOA has a place in the participation arrangements and each member company of UKOOA will have regular and ongoing deep consultations with the Department of Energy and myself about its own interests. I have signed, or am in process of signing, a consultation agreement with each of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Technology Transfer

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she has completed her review of the best methods of transferring appropriate technology to developing countries; and if she will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart):: An official working party has recommended that existing aid activities to promote intermediate technology should be intensified. It also recommends a number of new activities to be supported initially by at least £500,000 a year from the aid programme. I have accepted the recommendations, which, I believe, constitute an important step in our policy of increasing the emphasis in the aid programme on the poorer groups in the developing countries. The report will be published today.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that full reply. In the course of the review and consultations, was the Department of Trade included, and did its officials share with me and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends concern at the growing loss of trade which we are undergoing in our trade with the least developed countries? Second, has the right hon. Lady looked specifically at the commercial possibilities and opportunities which may exist for the transfer of appropriate technology?

Mrs. Hart: There were, as is normal, interdepartmental consultations on this matter. As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, he may have noticed—I am sure that he has—the statistics which I gave in Cardiff a week ago about our loss of trade with developing countries. I am profoundly convinced that we have a tremendous opportunity to expand trade and British exports with developing countries if we produce products appropriate to their needs. I greatly hope that this will be the beginning of an effort to promote just that, although, of course, it is only one aspect, and can be only one aspect, of a drive in that direction.

Mr. Spearing: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the announcement she has just made, but can she tell us a little

more about where the £500,000 will be spent? Will it be spent in overseas countries of the Third World or in this country, or, if not, where?

Mrs. Hart: I think that it will probably be spent mainly in supporting groups in this country which are promoting the development of intermediate technology. For example, I am certain that the Intermediate Technology Development Group will play a full part in this initiative. I think that the money will be mainly spent here.

Commonwealth Countries

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she intends to introduce any additional measures for overseas development, following the Commonwealth Leaders' Conference in June.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Minister of Overseas Development when she intends to introduce any additional measures for overseas development and planning following the Commonwealth Conference in June.

Mrs. Hart: In their final communique the Commonwealth Heads of Government outlined a number of ways in which the Commonwealth as a body intends to promote economic and social development among its poorer members. We wholeheartedly endorse these proposals.
The House will recall that at the conference the Prime Minister announced an increase of two-thirds in our pledged contribution to the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation—to give a ceiling of £3 million for this financial year, 1977–78.

Mr. Canavan: As the provision of more opportunities in education is one of the most meaningful ways by which we can help underdeveloped countries, are there any new initiatives forthcoming to help overseas students, especially from underdeveloped Commonwealth countries, who face the exorbitant increase in tuition fees imposed on them by the Department of Education and Science?

Mrs. Hart: As my hon. Friend will know, students who come here under the student and scholarship system of my Ministry are not affected by the fees increase. However, we are concerned


about this matter, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I and others are seeking to find a way in which we can resolve some of the undoubted problems which occur with poor students from rich countries or poor students from poor countries who are not covered by my Ministry's programme.

Mr. Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us were greatly distressed, as I am sure she was, at the cut of £50 million last November in the United Kingdom aid programme? Can she tell the House when it is likely to be restored to its previous level?

Mrs. Hart: I wish that I could tell my hon. Friend that it will be restored immediately, but I am afraid that I cannot. As he will know, the question of public expenditure on this programme, as on others, will be falling for collective consideration in the months ahead. I trust that a full recognition of the self-interest of Britain and of other factors will enable the cut to be restored.

Mr. Luce: Did not the Commonwealth leaders recognise the important rôle to be played by Western private investment in helping to improve the standard of living in developing countries? What action is the right hon. Lady taking to facilitate and encourage this?

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman must be aware from everything I have said in the House on this subject that I regard this as a matter for a direct relationship between the developing countries and private investors. That is the best way to approach it.

Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the denunciation by the Commonwealth leaders of the régime in Uganda, can my right hon. Friend give two assurances: first, that there will be no question of any aid, direct or indirect, going to Uganda during the rule of the present murderous régime, and, secondly, that she will consult the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade in an attempt to stop the indirect aid which Uganda is getting through the current trade going on between the countries?

Mrs. Hart: On my hon. and learned Friend's second point, as he may be aware, such consultations are already continuing.

There are great obstacles, as I think he knows. Nevertheless, we are seeking to see what can be done.
On my hon. and learned Friend's first point, no United Kingdom aid has gone to Uganda for, I think, five years. It is perhaps worth mentioning that at the time when President Amin succeeded President Obote—I do not say this in any sense of reproach to hon. Members opposite—there was a considerable welcome from Conservative Members. Later they learned better. Now we can say that we are all completely united in condemning what is happening in Uganda.

Mr. Tapsell: May I, on behalf of the Opposition, totally reject what the right hon. Lady has just said?

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman was not around at the time of the debates which took place then. I recall the precise debate in which—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present in the Chamber at the time. I recall the precise debate in which Conservative speakers welcomed what had happened in Uganda.

Mr. Tapsell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Forman. Question No. 35.

Later—

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of a previous exchange in questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) gave the impression that the previous Administration had not received the rule of President Amin with enthusiasm, whereas I have a clear memory of the fact that they received it with ecstasy, in spite of his record of being a murderer throughout his military career. In the interests of good order of the House, could an opportunity be provided for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remark?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order, but I will allow the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Tapsell: I sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on a second occasion. The right hon. Lady said that I had not been around while all these matters were discussed. I have been a Member of this


House for 18 years and have taken an intense interest in these subjects. I visited President Amin shortly after he became President of Uganda. On my return I saw the then Conservative Foreign Minister and told him that I thought President Amin was an exceedingly dangerous man who would cause nothing but tragedy for Uganda.

Mrs. Hart: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. Member for Horncastle to make a point. It was not on a point of order. I felt that it was fair to allow the hon. Gentleman that opportunity.

Mrs. Hart: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was seeking to refer to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: It was not a point of order.

Mrs. Hart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would an apology from me to the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) be permitted? I apologise to him personally because, in the light of what he has said, it is clear that his was one of the voices which counselled against the then current opinion of the British Conservative Government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a nice way in which to begin the week.

Low Income Countries

Mr. Forman: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the estimated cost of the new aid commitments for the United Kingdom which have arisen out of the North-South dialogue.

Mrs. Hart: The only new aid commitment arising from the North-South dialogue to which a specific figure has been attached is the $1 billion "Special Action" programme of quickly disbursing aid to individual low-income countries. The United Kingdom share of this will be $115 million, equivalent to about £67 million.

Mr. Forman: In view of the difficulty of raising sums of that kind, and bearing in mind the Prime Minister's statement over the weekend that there was light at the end of the national economic tunnel, may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she is aware that many of us on this side

of the House would want to support any efforts which she might make, collectively or otherwise, to get the aid budget up again on overseas official assistance?

Mrs. Hart: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment, but he will have observed what the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) said in the aid debate of 10 days or two weeks ago. I hope that he will persuade his hon. Friends to support the commitment which he and, I know, others on the Conservative Benches would like to make.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my right hon. Friend, in examining any of the aid commitments which her Department is to make—and all are welcome—investigate the possibility of spending more money on the teaching of English abroad which the Prime Minister agreed, after the Commonwealth Conference, was a very important aspect of our relations with our Commonwealth partners in particular?

Mrs. Hart: We should be very glad to extend our operations in this field. As my hon. Friend knows, we already do a great deal, and so does the British Council. Indeed, last week I had the opportunity of talking to representatives of one of the French Portuguese-speaking countries of Africa who emphasised to me how much they wanted the teaching of English and the British cultural presence to be part of whatever Britain could do in co-operation with them. I am completely aware of this.

Asia and South America (Rural Development)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what proportion of the 45 million units of account recently agreed by the EEC Development Council in Luxembourg for non-associated States in Asia and South America will be devoted to rural development.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. John Tomlinson): It has not yet been decided what proportion of the 45 million units of account will go towards rural development, but all member States appear to be generally in favour of projects in aid of food production in its broadest sense, and the Commission has this need very much in mind.

Mr. Spearing: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and welcome his sensitivity about the question of food production, but will he not agree that the most important question in rural development relates to subsistence economies where the cash increase to people in need may not be shown? Will he press on his colleagues in the EEC that this is the best and most urgent type of development to help people most in need?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I can give him the assurance which he seeks. Not only will the pressure be maintained; it is being made to be felt in the Community.

Mr. Greville Janner: What approaches has my hon. Friend had in this connection from the new Government of India? Can he give an assurance that we, through the EEC and in our own account, will give every assistance we can to them?

Mr. Tomlinson: The interests of India were very much to the forefront in the attitude of the British delegation at the last Meeting of the Council of Development ministers when we pushed very strongly for the proportion of the 45 mua going to the Asian countries to be somewhat larger than that which other countries would have liked to see.

Oral Answers to Questions — Falkland Islands

Sir Bernard Braine: asked the Minister of Overseas Development why she will initiate studies into the possibility of aid for the extension of the airport and the development of fisheries and tourism in the Falkland Islands only when a framework of political and economic cooperation with Argentina has been established.

Mr. Tomlinson: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' predecessor said on 2nd February, the Government will at the appropriate moment commission essential preliminary studies on airport enlargement. Major economic developments, including tourism and fisheries, can be undertaken only within the framework of economic co-operation with Argentina, and any useful study of the need for an enlarged airport would have to take into account the likely demands

which would be made by such developments.

Sir B. Braine: That is not an answer to the Question on the Order Paper. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reply of the Minister of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) on 13th June that she would not consider the question of aid for extending the airfield until agreement had been reached with the Argentine came as a great shock to hon. Members on both sides of the House? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the only interest of the Argentine Government is in securing sovereignty over the islands, which the islanders do not want? Is he further aware that the only way of giving the Falkland Islands an independent outlet to the world is by extending the runway? Anyway, why are we talking to a Fascist Government whose disregard of human rights has already, rightly, led the United States Administration to cut off aid?

Mr. Tomlinson: I believe that the hon. Gentleman must have misheard or misunderstood what I said. I told him that the Government
will at the appropriate moment commission essential preliminary studies.
In fact, that clearly and specifically answers the Question which the hon. Gentleman tabled. The wider political aspects to which he referred are matters which should be raised with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Luce: Did not the Shackleton Report recognise an agreed number of areas of commercial potential for the Falk-lands, including fisheries and tourism? In the light of this, should not the Government regard the provision of any moneys for the extension of the airfield in the Falklands as an investment upon which Britain can expect a return? Will the Government therefore get on with it?

Mr. Tomlinson: Any possible extension to the airport enabling larger aeroplanes to land would need the provision of large terminal buildings and of more sophisticated equipment and manpower and would increase the recurrent costs. These are matters which will be subject to consideration at the appropriate time.

Mr. Tapsell: Concerning the fisheries aspect of the question, is the British


delegation at the third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, currently in session in New York, actively safeguarding the fishing and mineral interests of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, as well as the Falkland Islands?

Mr. Tomlinson: That does not directly relate to this Question. If the hon. Gentleman will table a separate Question or write to me about it, I shall certainly deal specifically with that, but at the moment—

Mr. Tapsell: The Question mentions fishing.

Mr. Tomlinson: If the hon. Member is so insistent upon hearing his own voice for a second time without listening to the reply, so be it, but the detailed question does not arise. If he wants a detailed reply, he can have it. In more general terms, the Falkland Islands do not have the requisite manpower or the infrastructure to develop an offshore fishing industry.

Mr. Faulds: Will my hon. Friend accept that a goodly number of us on the Government side very much endorse the animadversions of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine)?

Mr. Tomlinson: In my ignorance, I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) was saying. I am sure that I have some company in the House in that respect. The answer I gave quite clearly said that
Major economic developments, including tourism and fisheries, can be undertaken only within the framework of economic co-operation with Argentina".

Sir B. Braine: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies received, particularly the very last one, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS MEETINGS)

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about business to be taken in the Council of Ministers of the European Community during July, the first month of the Belgian Presidency. The monthly forecast for July was deposited on 22nd June.
At present four meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for July. Finance Ministers will meet on the 18th; Agriculture Ministers on the 18th and 19th; Budget Ministers on the 20th; and Foreign Ministers on the 25th and 26th July, or possibly only on the 26th July.
At the Finance Council, Ministers will have their second quarterly examination of the economic situation in the Community.
Agriculture Ministers will be considering fisheries matters, together with proposals for a potato régime, the labelling of milk products and aid for producer groups.
At the Budget Council, Ministers will establish the draft Community Budget for 1978.
Foreign Affairs Ministers will discuss the outcome of the European Council on 29th and 30th June, relations with Spain, Cyprus and Malta, the accession negotiations with Greece and possibly fisheries matters.

Mr. John Davies: I thank the Minister of State for his statement. I have several questions to put to him.
First, will it be the meeting of Finance Ministers or that of Budget Ministers which will deal with the very critical question of the conversion rate used from units of account to sterling for the purpose of the budget?
Secondly, concerning the two meetings which will deal with fisheries matters, are we right in supposing that there is now some intention on the part of the Government to abandon their stand on the up-to-50-miles limit and to adopt a different system, a quota system, in their


discussions of these matters, which would be against the generally expressed wish of the House?
Thirdly, we had understood from the European Council report that Foreign Ministers would be seeking to find a solution to the very important and as yet frustrated issue concerning the Joint European Torus. The Minister's statement makes no mention of that. Will he assure us that that matter will not be left aside?
Finally, I assure the Minister that, even for those of us who believe very deeply in the future of the Community, the essential need to re-characterise our well-known ice cream as something else does not seem to us to justify the great effort that the Commission might make.

Mr. Judd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit of his questions.
The Finance Ministers have the European unit of account well on board.
Our policy on fisheries at future meetings will be as set out clearly by my right hon. Friend in the context of the debate on 23rd June.
The position relating to JET is, of course, well known. The Government are very anxious to have JET at Culham. This has remained our position consistently for some time now. We believe that it is high time that we had a European institution in this country. This is an ideal opportunity. The Prime Ministers have charged the Foreign Ministers with the task of continuing discussions on this at the next Council of Foreign Ministers.
I know the strength of feeling on both sides of the House concerning our ice cream. That is an issue which we are pursuing vigorously.

Mr. Thorpe: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether we may expect a further initiative to be taken in regard to the Middle East, following the Council declaration in that regard?
Will the hon. Gentleman say a little more about JET? Are there further technical matters which are required to be ascertained, or is it merely a political agreement?
On a minor domestic matter, some of us think that it would be rather more

honest if ice cream were ice cream and not filthy vegetable fat masquerading under that name.

Mr. Judd: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views on ice cream. Some of us have a degree of personal sympathy with what he said, but there is a great deal of feeling in this country about British ice cream and the traditions of it, and we shall make sure that these are not thrown lightly aside.
The right hon. Gentleman will agree that one statement at a time on such a sensitive issue as the Middle East is right. It was a significant statement. Time should be taken to digest it, to let the parties concerned consider what is at stake and also what is the position of the Community. The Community constantly monitors this situation carefully. It is not only of concern to the people of the Middle East but has implications for the international community as a whole.
There are two elements in the JET problem. One is a Community management problem. We believe that the management arrangements for JET should reflect the fact that it is genuinely a Community enterprise. There is also the more political issue of where it is to be situated, and this is the issue with which we are principally grappling.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend recall that on Friday 24th June the House debated Regulation No. 2655 of 1976 concerning the harmonisation of rules for immigrant workers? Can he tell the House whether this will be discussed at the Council next month, if it has not already been discussed, and whether this will be reported back to the House?

Mr. Judd: The position of immigrant workers is constantly before the Council of Ministers and it is something that we shall continue to watch carefully. I am able to tell my hon. Friend that agreement was reached at the meeting of the Council of Ministers on social affairs on 28th June with regard to the directive on the education of migrant workers' children. This will assist the free movement of workers within the Community by providing for the special educational needs of their children.

Mr. Dykes: Now that the presidency of the Council of Ministers is in more


capable hands than the British Labour Government, does the Minister think that in the next six months there will be a new economic impetus particularly for the reinforcement of economic policy guidelines? What has happened to the proposal to form a European export bank?

Mr. Judd: As I have just said, Finance Ministers will be continuing their discussion this month and will be looking at the forthcoming budget. With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am bound to say that if he reads all the commentary—and there has been a great deal of it in recent weeks—one continuing theme time and time again is about the professional efficiency with which the presidency was handled.

Mr. Crawford: Leaving out the sellout of the Scottish fishing industry by the Conservative Party, may I ask the Minister whether the Council of Ministers will be discussing the Community's new approach to the regional fund? If so, can the Government spell out precisely what the net gain will be for Scotland?

Mr. Judd: This will be a matter which continues to receive careful attention.

Mr. Greville Janner: What steps will be taken to review the meetings going on at Belgrade at the moment concerning the attitude of the Nine with regard to the Helsinki Agreement? Will my hon. Friend confirm that there can be no question of our delegation agreeing to the meetings taking place in October until there is a clear and full discussion on the implementation of the Helsinki Agreement thus far?

Mr. Judd: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Nine have been putting a great deal of effort and time into coordinating their position and are determined to approach these talks with as much common ground as possible between them. We ourselves are not interested in charades at the Belgrade talks. We are interested in some probing of what progress has been made towards the fulfilment of what was agreed at Helsinki.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the recent European Court decision to disallow the quota marking of broiler chickens, is it the view

of the Minister that the British Government will be able to secure a revision of the Potato Marketing Board, with its existing powers, at the meeting of the Agriculture Ministers on 18th and 19th July?

Mr. Judd: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no immediate prospect of the demise of the Potato Marketing Board. This is something on which we shall have to await the decisions about the whole potato régime, which are still not yet finalised.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Will my hon. Friend clarify his reference to potatoes, because it is a matter which is leading the British housewife to believe that Brussels will now be responsible for potato supplies?

Mr. Judd: It is certainly our intention that whatever emerges as an EEC potato régime will preserve all that is best in our own approach and policy towards potatoes.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call those hon. Members who have been standing and also the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, if he wishes, at the end.

Mr. Forman: With regard to the meeting on 25th and 26th July, what reason is there to suppose that the Foreign Ministers will be able to reach agreement on this most important matter of JET any more easily or speedily than the Heads of Government? Secondly, will the Foreign Ministers be looking into the proposal of Roy Jenkins to set up slightly modified institutional arrangements in the Community to cope with an enlarged Community?

Mr. Judd: We were determined to try to reach a Community solution to the JET project. But, as we have made very plain, the British Government believe that we have a strong claim for JET in this country. There are other countries in the Community with more than one EEC institution already established. We do not have one.
It is not a matter of seeking one to come here. If we did not have the project here it would remove the one already established in embryo. That is the basis


on which we are going into the discussions. With regard to enlargement, this is one of the problems that we shall be discussing over the months ahead, but the British Government's general attitude towards enlargement and the importance of underwriting and strengthening democracy in this process is well understood.

Mr. George Gardiner: Will there be any opportunity in July for the member Governments to review their commitment to holding direct elections to the European Assembly in May or June next year, since it is becoming increasingly obvious that the United Kingdom will not be able to meet this deadline, whichever system in the Bill dealing with European Assembly elections is approved?

Mr. Judd: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman must speak for himself. With regard to the general position, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made very clear after the recent meeting of Prime Ministers, we seem to be as well advanced as most other members of the Community.

Mr. Watt: When the budget is being discussed in the Council of Ministers, will the Government point out that their contribution to the budget is grossly excessive and that unless and until the CAP is greatly revised this money will be largely wasted?

Mr. Judd: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that on a number of occasions I have made quite clear what our position is with regard to the CAP and with regard to the need for reform.

Mr. John Davies: Can the Minister clarify his remarks on potatoes? He left us with the unhappy impression that as the discussions evolve he would be perfectly prepared to jettison the Potato Marketing Board. That would be a very dangerous situation for this House to accept.

Mr. Judd: As someone who regards himself as a connoisseur of potatoes, no one has greater respect for the Board than I have. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall not lightly cast aside the distinguished rôle of this important British institution.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[26th ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Orders of the Day — PRIME MINISTER (SALARY)

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I beg to move
That the salary of the Prime Minister be reduced by half.

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden).

Mr. Stewart: It is an interesting fact—perhaps not inappropriate—that the debate is being held on Independence Day—American Independence Day. Despite the opposition of Lord North, George III and others, the American colonies achieved their independence, as Scotland assuredly will, despite the spiritual heirs of Lord North in this House.
The Declaration of Independence speaks of Governments
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
This debate concerns a Government abusing their unjust powers, with the dissent of the governed.
My remarks will be confined mainly to the Scottish situation. That does not imply that the Government have acted in an acceptable way in Wales, England or Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that other hon. Members will be bringing that to the attention of the Government. Nor does it imply that we on the SNP Bench expect a Tory Government to be any improvement. It is extremely difficult to attack their policies. As Churchill said in another connection, they are
a riddle, wrapped in mystery, inside an enigma.
The manifesto of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Conservative Opposition appears to be simply "Won't you please buy my pig in a poke?" I shall say no more about the Conservative Party because today I want to fight on one front. I do not want any of the reserve troops deserting.
I turn first to devolution and to the legislative Assembly to which the Labour Party in October 1974 promised to give
high priority in the next Parliament.
It is true that we did have a Bill of sorts. On the guillotine motion, the Government exposed their lack of real concern. That has not gone unnoticed in Scotland. Nor has the fact that although Scottish MPs, or hon. Members from Scottish constituencies, voted two to one for the guillotine, that expression of opinion counted for absolutely nothing.
In 1974 the Tories said,
Devolution can free Scotland from the frustrations of centralisation.
To show their attachment to that principle, they have just merged their Scottish organisation with the English one.
What is this Government's record on social welfare? According to the—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) is in a hurry to deliver one of his carefully prepared and usually damp squibs. I have not said anything really controversial so far.
According to the report of the National Children's Bureau, Scotland has the highest proportion of disadvantaged children in Britain—five times the ratio of disadvantaged children in the South-East of England. In the words of the report, they are
doomed to become failures from the day of their birth
because of overcrowded or deprived homes, parents with low incomes, and so on. What has Labour's rhetoric on compassion and caring done about that? Incidentally, what has happened to the £120 million announced to deal with deprived areas in Glasgow?
At the other end of the scale, we have the old people. Age Concern in Scotland has campaigned, so far without success, for an increase in the funeral grant. The average funeral in Scotland now costs about £120. The Government's contribution remains at £30. [Interruption.] Government supporters may think that that is a laughing matter. It is not a laughing matter for many people in Scotland who cannot meet these expenses, especially under this Government. Where is the trumpeted concern for old people in that fact? The position is not helped by rising prices, reduced living standards and a pound in

the pocket which has shrunk to 50p since this Government came to office.
As for education, recently the Secretary of State for Scotland produced a paper proposing widespread and catastrophic cuts in training colleges in Scotland. Following very strong opposition from all parties in Scotland, including some members of his own party, the right hon. Gentleman has been obliged to reduce the extent of the mutilation of Scotland's education system.
It has been pointed out in the past that education is not a function, like roads which can be halted for 10 years and then resumed. In that period, a large section will have been deprived of educational opportunity, to the permanent loss of society and themselves.
A week or two back, the Child Poverty Action Group reported that younger children were missing lessons because their parents could not afford to buy them school uniforms. In some authorities, the average grant is £9 a year, which is a ludicrously inadequate figure. The same report stated that 16-to-18-year olds were forced to leave school because their parents failed to get adequate help with the cost of maintaining them at school.
The March figures show that 580 teachers are registered at unemployment exchanges in Scotland. The Government, like their predecessors, induced people to go into the teaching profession, even asking people of mature age to leave their jobs to become teachers. Therefore, they have a moral obligation to see that these people are not left on the dole.
What is the Government's record on transport? I deal with this briefly because I hope that one of my hon. Friends will be fortunate enough, Mr. Speaker, to catch your eye in order to spell it out in detail. The recent transport document is a severe blow to Scotland. It is geared to the English dimension. I refer only to two items in that document which affect my constituency. Paragraph 161 says:
In Scotland air services are an important basic means of communication, particularly to and from the islands.
That is very true. What have the Government done to live up to that sentiment? They have permitted British Airways to charge £116 to fly from Stornaway to London, although it will fly anyone to


Athens for £85. They have permitted British Airways to increase charges on flights from Stornaway and Benbecula to the south by a third inside one year, so its aircraft are flying with 50 per cent. of their seats empty.
It was a great relief in Scotland that the proposed 5½p tax on petrol had to be scrapped. However, it should be noted that the Government promised to withdraw it in time for the holidays. That covers the English holidays, but it is too late for the school holidays in Scotland. The rejection of road equivalent tariff is a severe blow to the Scottish Islands, which are as entitled to economic transport costs as any other part of the United Kingdom.
I turn now to the area of the greatest betrayal—unemployment.
Back to work with Labour".
What a sick joke that is now. There were no reservations or caveats when that slogan was produced. There was no suggestion then that unemployment was a worldwide phenomenon.
Scottish unemployment has been rising steadily during the lifetime of this Gov ernment. In June 1974, 77,900 men and women were unemployed. That figure represents 3·6 per cent. of the working population. By June 1976, the figure had risen to about 144,000 or 6·6 per cent. of the working population. By June 1977, last month, the figure had risen to 186,000, or 8·6 per cent. of the working population. That was an all-time peak and an increase of about 22,000 on the previous month. It is, in fact, the worst figure since the 1930s. There are young people today who are experiencing a situation unknown in Scotland since their grandfathers' time in the 1930s.
The prospect for school leavers is desperate. There are 24,997 of them unemployed and only 1,574 jobs notified to careers officers. Youth unemployment is particularly severe in Scotland, and 13·3 per cent. of Scottish unemployed are teenagers, compared with a figure of 9 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole.
Mr. James Kirkwood, Assistant General Secretary of the STUC, said recently:
The fact that 24,997 school leavers are unemployed in Scotland is a sad reflection

on the importance society attaches to the needs and aspirations of the country's future.
The sad reflection is on this Government
The previous Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Kil-marnock (Mr. Ross), said that a holder of that office should leave it when unemployment reached 100,000.

Mr. William Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me when I said that? I have no recollection of saying it at any time during the period when I was Secretary of State.

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman told his Conservative counterpart in a debate that he should be ashamed and should demit his office if unemployment reached 100,000. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has heard this said on many occasions in this House, and I have never heard him repudiate it before.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: Give us the reference to the quotation.

Mr. Stewart: I cannot keep that sort of information in my head. But I have no doubt about it. The right hon. Gentleman said that a Secretary of State should leave office if unemployment reached 100,000. However, when unemployment reached that figure, he did not leave office.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that when I was Secretary of State I made a certain remark. I want him to tell us when I said it and whether he will repeat the words that I used.

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman charged his counterpart in the Conservative Government with failure to leave office when the figure reached 100,000.

Mr. William Ross: When?

Mr. Stewart: It is a well-publicised statement, and it has never been repudiated by the right hon. Gentleman until today.
It is totally unacceptable to put forward the excuse that unemployment is a worldwide phenomenon. The facts are that in April, when unemployment in Scotland was running at 7·4 per cent., in Sweden it was 1·7 per cent.—

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: And in Ireland?

Mr. Stewart: In Japan, it was 1·8 per per cent.—

Mr. Rifkind: And in Ireland?

Mr. Stewart: In Norway, it was 1·5 per cent.—

Mr. Rifkind: And in Ireland?

Mr. Stewart: In Switzerland, it was too small to be counted.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is correctly referring to the unemployment figures of a number of other countries. Can he give us the present unemployment rate in the one country of the British Isles which has been completely independent for the last 50 years?

Mr. Stewart: I was making the case—and I think that I have proved my point—that unemployment was not a worldwide phenomenon. I stand by that. I do not want to be too difficult with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). As I said earlier, I do not want any of the reserve troops to fall by the wayside.
I am especially bitter about unemployment because my constituency with an unemployment level in the region of 15 per cent., should be a test case with this Government. An hon. Friend of the Secretary of State said, after he returned from my constituency with a Select Committee a few days ago,
These islands have been neglected by successive Governments.
Vague replies about plans by the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the job creation schemes will not do. What we require are permanent job creation schemes for the Western Isles and for Scotland as a whole.
All that deprivation is totally unnecessary in Scotland. It is a nation that can ensure the basic foodstuffs for its own people. It is a nation that, from one industry alone—I know that the hon. Members will find this funny—has produced over £100 million every day in 1976 from whisky for the British Exchequer. It is a nation whose trade deficit is small.
A project carried out by the Scottish Council Research Institute, the Fraser of Allender Institute, and the IBM scientific centre, shows that the deficit on the Scottish balance of trade was running at only £253 million in 1973—less than half the figure accepted by Ministers in their arguments against the case for Scottish independence. The United Kingdom visible trade deficit in the same year was £2,332 million.
Scotland is a nation of vast oil resources. The Prime Minister bases his optimistic future on oil. I want to say seriously that he should not depend too much on oil. He cannot blind the Scottish people to the enormous resources from their own area and at the same time tell them that there are no finances to do the things that are so urgently required in Scotland.
It will not go unnoticed that these enormous resources, leaving aside the question of ownership, are in the Scottish sector or the North Sea, by the British Government's own designation. At the same time Government spokesmen are telling us, when we are putting forward all these deprivations in Scotland, that the funds do not exist. That bluff cannot be continued indefinitely.
Therefore, we charge the Government with failure and neglect on education, on the devolution Bill, on social welfare, on transport, on unemployment, and on falling living standards. They ought to be getting the message by now.
In the 1974 Election the Labour Party lost 10 deposits in Scotland—more than it had lost in the whole of the United Kingdom at any election since 1935. The recent by-elections and opinion polls all point the message to the Government. Their heads are in the sand.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Craigentinny.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member talks about Craigentinny. To point to Craigentinny as the sign of the road back makes building bricks without straw a fairly rational occupation.
The Government's head is in the sand, and the Government have an appalling obtuseness that keeps their heads in the sand when their behinds are being so frequently and so heartily kicked. On


previous occasions in the House, Governments have been told that they have been sat there too long for any good they have done. Let the House complete the message tonight.

4.5 p.m.

The Secretary of Stale for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): One of the few things that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) did not mention was the salary of the Prime Minister. He covered a fairly wide area, although whether we had anything new from him I would very much doubt, because what we had from him seemed to me to be a rather tired recital of the normal stuff that we get slightly less distilled in a series of speeches from members of the Scottish National Party.
I want to pick up at least one or two of the points that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. This is a rather extraordinary debate, because the way in which the motion has been tabled is such that it is presumably intended to be some kind of motion of censure on the Government. I suppose that that is the reason for the extraordinary decision, as I understand it, of the Conservative Party to go into the Lobby with the SNP at the end of the debate. I hope that, having listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Tories feel pleased with themselves.
Another extraordinary feature of the debate is, as I understand it, that the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) is to wind up for the SNP, but he does not happen to be here.

Mr. Hamish Watt: If the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland were running affairs better, perhaps British Airways would be running their shuttle service more regularly and the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) could get here more expeditiously.

Mr. Millan: I understand that the competence of the hon. Member for Argyll to run the country does not extend to getting here at the start of the debate. [Interruption.] It would help considerably—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The exchange of compliments from a sedentary position is not helping the debate at all. It will ruin it.

Mr. Millan: It would help if we were to know who is to wind up the debate for the SNP and Welsh nationalist party, because it is an extraordinary situation as well that apparently the debate was to be opened and wound up by the SNP with the Welsh nationalists nowhere.
I should have thought that the SNP, whose members normally complain about small parties and small nations being badly treated, might have allowed the Welsh nationalists to wind up tonight. I do not know why the Welsh nationalists are being treated in this disgraceful way.
Despite that, whoever winds up for the motley collection opposite tonight, it is the intention that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will wind up from the Government Front Bench because we took this debate as a matter of some seriousness, although that might have been a mistake on our part.
I want to say something about the economic situation and unemployment particularly as it affects Scotland, because that is a very serious matter. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of other matters. I do not intend to cover them all, but perhaps I should say something about one matter that he mentioned, which concerns teaching. We have had a debate on Scottish teaching and the teacher supply position on a number of occasions in recent months. I will not cover the whole of the ground because we shall be discussing this matter also during one of the Scottish Estimates debates. I should like to give a couple of figures to demonstrate the absolute absurdity of the assertions that were made by the right hon. Gentleman.
For example, I will give the number of teachers and lecturers in Scottish education in March 1977, which are the latest figures we have, compared with March 1976. I think that it is on the basis of full-time equivalents. The figure has increased from 62,600 to 63,900. In other words, there has been a substantial increase over the past year despite the fact that there is a strong assertion that the numbers have fallen. The numbers have risen considerably over the past year.
I would also like to give figures for the pupil-teacher ratio because, again, the right hon. Gentleman would have


us believe that the figures have deteriorated in the past year or so. That is not true. In the September 1976 school census, the pupil-teacher ratios in Scotland were 22·4 in primary and 14·7 in secondary schools. Those were the best figures we have ever had. Incidentally, if I make the English comparison to this mixed audience of Scottish, Welsh and English Members, the fact is that the figures of 22·4 and 14·7 for primary and secondary respectively compare with figures of 23·9 and 17 in England. Therefore, the Scottish position is, in fact, considerably better than that south of the Border.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: Could the Secretary of State tell us when he intends to reach a conclusion on his deliberations about the money that should be spent on deprived areas to improve the pupil-teacher complement? All educational authorities in Scotland do not accept that the pupil-teacher ratio there is the best guide. This was reiterated in a letter that was sent to me today from the NAS and the NWT.

Mr. Millan: I am considering that, but at the same time I must answer some of the wilder assertions made about Scottish education by the right hon. Member for Western Isles and some of his colleagues. He consistently suggests that everything is deteriorating and that the teacher supply position is disastrous. That is not true at all. It is better than ever before and the figures compare favourably with those for the rest of the British Isles.

Mr. Perry: They are better.

Mr. Speaker: May I ask the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) to restrain his enthusiasm. He should let the Minister do his best.

Mr. Millan: I am trying to do so, but I am grateful for help, Mr. Speaker, from whatever quarter it comes.
It is true that one of the problems with which we are dealing at present is that the world economic situation presents difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman quoted certain unemployment figures, but when he was asked to quote other comparisons with other countries, he did not do so. The Scottish seasonally adjusted figure which, in June, was 7·7 per cent., is far too high. But it compares with, for

example, Belgium where the figure is 9·4 per cent; Denmark with 11·2 per cent; and Ireland, where in January the figure was 12 per cent.—considerably higher than either the Scottish or the United Kingdom figures as a whole.
These figures are a reflection of a number of things, particularly the very difficult world economic situation that we have had over the past two or three years.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: As this is Independence Day, will the Secretary of State give the figures for the United States? Its unemployment figures are much higher than those in Britain at present.

Mr. Millan: I do not have the figures offhand but what my hon. Friend says is absolutely true. We have been dealing with a world situation of considerable seriousness. If one looks at Scotand—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will speak for that country later—one sees that in recent years we have been very much more successful. We have had a relative improvement in the Scottish economy. The average earnings of male manual workers in Scotland exceeded those in the United Kingdom as a whole for the first time in 1975 and then again in 1976. It is absolute nonsense to pretend that the Scottish situation is, in all these matters, so much worse than that of the rest of the United Kingdom. That is simply not true.
The Government are very concerned about the present level of unemployment. I have never disguised my view that it is unacceptably high. The figure for the month of June, in particular, was disappointing. It was very much affected by the influx of summer school leavers, who leave school rather earlier in Scotland than they used to do. But the figures would have been very much worse had it not been for the special measures that the Government have introduced to alleviate the worst experiences of those—particularly young people—who are unable to get jobs in the present difficult time. At present, about 320,000 people are being assisted by these schemes, including 44,000 in Scotland.
Of course, there is no substitute for a permanent productive job, but at a time when we have been going through deep world recession, it takes time for economic policies, aided by regional policies,


to have their effect in the creation of new job opportunities. That is why we must act now to try to combat the worst effects of the situation. Against that background I am sure that people in Scotland, especially parents of young school leavers, will welcome the imaginative scheme announced last week by the Secretary of State for Employment which will provide an integrated programme of work preparation, work experience and training for young people who are at present unable to get jobs. With a target of 130,000 places by September 1978, it will double the places provided under the existing programmes for helping young people.
On adult unemployment, particularly the young adults or those over 25 who have been out of work for a year or more, the introduction from 1st April of the special temporary employment programme, to provide 25,000 places in areas with severe problems, also will be welcomed in Scotland. I hope that these measures ably demonstrate the Government's concern—shared in all quarters of this House—about the plight of the unemployed in Scotland and in other areas of high unemployment. Naturally, we shall press on as fast as we can with these measures, recognising that they are important in the present situation but also recognising that we wish to have a situation as soon as possible where we can rely on the general state of the economy to provide additional jobs rather than relying on temporary measures.
We must recognise that there are certain elements in the unemployment situation at present—particularly youth unemployment—which show signs of structural unemployment. I believe that some of the measures we have taken that were announced last week are more than temporary. We shall need elements of special effort of this kind on a permanent basis to deal with the serious problems.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: To come back to the point of the unemployment rates, those quoted by the Secretary of State were in countries that are members of the EEC. Those quoted by my right hon. Friend were in countries that are not in the Common Market. In terms of unemployment, what benefit has it been to Scotland to be a member of the EEC?

Mr. Millan: I thought that the Scottish National Party had decided that the United Kingdom should stay in the Common Market.

Mr. Robert Mellish: As a very humble Englishman, may I have either an affirmation or denial whether the SNP believes that we should stay in the Common Market? This is a very relevant argument.

Mr. Millan: I believe that there is more than one point of view about the Common Market on the SNP Bench.
It is part of the Government's efforts to reduce unemployment, and, within that, to give priority to industrial strategy. There are a number of figures which I shall quote to illustrate the way in which Scotland has benefited from this strategy in recent years. In the new sectoral schemes of assistance under Section 8 of the Industry Act, Scottish firms have been obtaining their share. For example, grants of more than £5 million were paid to 23 Scottish firms under the ferrous foundry schemes. This is on top of the additional funds announced for the SDA and the continuing high level of expenditure on regional development grants—£108 million has been spent in Scotland in 1976–77 and selective assistance to industry under the Industry Act—about £20 million paid in interest relief grants in 1976–77.
Scotland is continuing to attract important developments by overseas companies. Within recent months we have had the new project announced by Cummins at Shotts; there has been the opening of a new plant by Polaroid at the Vale of Leven; and within the last week JLG Industries has announced plans for a new and substantial project at Cumbernauld.
These firms have been attracted by the availability of suitable factories and selective assistance from my Department. But there is also a good deal of evidence of continuing confidence in many parts of the industrial structure in Scotland in indigenous firms and this shows confidence in Scotland's industrial future. I should mention in this context Ferranti of Edinburgh which has engendered an additional 1,200 jobs, and Nairn Floors at Kirkcaldy, a large project which has also provided an additional number of jobs. Therefore, there is considerable evidence of increased confidence in the Scottish economy
I should like to mention the CBI industrial trend survey in April which produced the most optimistic figure of costs in terms of industrial investment in Scotland we have had since October 1973.
Regional policies have continued to improve, witness the increases in assistance in special development areas in respect of improvements in interest relief, grants and rent-free factories announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry on Monday of last week. Perhaps I should also mention that the Scottish Development Agency, in the 18 months of its existence, has had a creditable record of success. In industrial investment the agency has announced the expenditure of over £8 million in companies whose activities range from knitwear to domestic appliances. About 7,000 people are, or will be, employed in companies in which the SDA already has an interest. It has also announced three advanced factory programmes, and it has been involved in most of the major industrial developments in Scotland in the last year or 18 months.
The right hon. Gentleman appeared to dismiss the important rôle; of the SDA in the Glasgow East End urban renewal project—a project the importance of which I should like to underline. It is a massive scheme which has received assistance from the SDA and the SSHA. That scheme is on a scale that is greater than anything we have in the rest of the United Kingdom.
As for the SDA's total budget in the current year, we have budgeted for expenditure of over £66 million which will represent a considerable increase over last year. I am glad to say that I believe the SDA will show increasing success in the next few years.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: May I draw attention to what was said in Friday's Scottish Daily Record when its political reporter said that representatives of the SNP had visited the Scottish Development Agency and had been told by its chairman that he was very worried about the organisation's future and the fact that it might be centralised under the National Enterprise Board. Is there any foundation in that report?

Mr. Millan: There is no foundation in that report. I have checked the matter, and the SDA is not worried in that

respect. There is no question of a takeover by the NEB, there never was, and I think there never will be in the life of this Government.
Let me say a few words about the subject of North Sea oil, which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The situation is that in 1976 the United Kingdom consumed practically 90 million tons of oil, nearly all of which was imported at a net cost of £4,000 million on the visible trade account. This represents a staggering increase compared with only two to three years earlier. By 1980 we estimate that the annual savings to the visible trade account will amount to between £5,000 million and £6,000 million at estimated 1980 prices.
The benefits to Scotland are apparent, and any hon. Member who visits Scotland can see the situation for himself. A total of 50,000 to 65,000 jobs have already been created directly or indirectly by the North Sea oil activities. It is particularly encouraging that many of these jobs have been created in areas of high technological development and geographically in areas of historic high unemployment. Therefore, it is absurd for anybody to claim, as the right hon. Gentleman constantly does, that there has been no benefit in Scotland from North Sea oil. There has been very substantial benefit from North Sea oil in terms of development in Scotland. The only thing that could prejudice that situation would be the adoption of SNP policy on North Sea oil. I understand that SNP members wish to phase down the production of North Sea oil so that it reaches a maximum of no more than 30 million to 40 million tons a year.

Mr. Watt: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman is certainly not an authority on fish and, as far as I know, he is no authority on North Sea oil either. The effect of the SNP's policy would be an immediate loss of many thousands of jobs in Scotland. Incidentally, jobs provided by North Sea oil activities which have come to the Stornoway area, would under SNP policies almost certainly disappear very rapidly indeed.
We can expect in future an increase in the number of jobs arising from North Sea oil, which has shown annually an


upward trend. We appreciate that whereas there is now a situation of comparative stability, it is important that we maintain employment at something like the present level in North Sea oil activities directly or indirectly in Scotland. This is why we have been encouraging industry to look abroad to where important markets exist for offshore oil equipment—for example, to South America and South-East Asia. The potential has already been illustrated by the recent winning of an order for Petrobras in Brazil, to be built by McDermott at Ardersier. We also have prospective developments in petrochemicals which in the longer term will have even greater significance for Scottish industry.
On all these fronts there has been considerable advance in the last two or three years—advance which is well recognised by the people of Scotland. We intend to see that the advances of North Sea oil will be felt generally in Scotland, but there is nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's policy or in the SNP policy generally which will lead to anything other than what I believe could be potential industrial dereliction. The kind of destructive policies which the SNP have been proclaiming, whether on North Sea oil or on industry generally, would lead to a mass exodus of industrial development in Scotland.

Mr. Watt: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that many regional and district councils have had to borrow over a 60-year period? Therefore, SNP policy involving a slow down in the amount of oil would at least last over the lifetime of that debt. Surely that is sound business by any standards.

Mr. Millan: So far as what the hon. Gentleman says is intelligible, it demonstrates that SNP policy would lead to a massive loss of jobs in North Sea oil development in Scotland.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On the subject of oil and industrial strategy in general, will the Minister remind SNP Members that in this House they opposed the setting up of BNOC, they opposed the public enterprise rôle of the SDA and they also opposed public ownership of aircraft and shipbuilding—all of which were wanted by trade union-

ists because of the effect on the job situation in Scotland? In other words, by opposing those measures they voted against jobs for Scotland.

Mr. Millan: I do not need to remind the House about those matters because my hon. Friend has done it for me. The record of the SNP on industrial development in Scotland is deplorable. It is not only in the area of North Sea oil but Chrysler as well, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) reminded us. At best the SNP has played an equivocal rôle. At worst it has voted in this House in a way detrimental to the maintenance and expansion of jobs in Scotland.
I was drawing to a close. I wanted briefly to mention devolution. I repeat what has been said in this House: the Government are utterly determined to put a devolution proposal on the statute book. We intend to introduce legislation on devolution in the next Session of Parliament and to see that that legislation goes through in the next Session of Parliament. I want to state in the most categorical terms that that legislation will be an essential feature of the Government's programme for next Session. We intend to get that legislation on the statute book.
We have a number of other policies that we also intend to get on the statute book. We intend to legislate for parts of the new housing strategy that I announced to the House last week. We have proposed legislation on a number of other matters that will more than keep Scottish Members busy during the next Session of Parliament.
I repeat, the Government intend to get the devolution Bill through. We have a full programme of work for the next Session and we intend to continue to govern this country.

On that basis, I ask the House to reject this ridiculous motion.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: This debate concerns the life of Scotland and of Wales. Therefore, I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales in his opening say that he did not know why he took the debate seriously. We have the best of reasons for taking debates of this kind seriously. Anything that concerns


and can help the future of Wales and of Scotland is of great importance to us.
Today we find ourselves part of a State—sometimes called Britain, sometimes the United Kingdom—which is a multinational State. In recent years we have seen the Government of this State in something of a shambles. That is why we have proposed the reduction of the salary of the Prime Minister, who is now presiding over that situation.
Britain is a unitary centralist State. Although it is responsible for the government of a group of nations, it has never developed into a truly multinational State.
Two or three generations ago there was talk of home rule all round. That was supported by the Labour Party for a whole generation and it was also supported by the Liberal Party, but, when they had the opportunity of acting, they did nothing.
The more the power of the State has increase, the greater the State has been centralised. That is doing the life of our countries the greatest harm in every respect.
Policy decisions concerning the whole of Wales are made in Westminster or Whitehall, particularly by the bureaucratic section of the Government. No policy decisions are made in and for Wales by the elected representatives of Wales.
Much power over Wales has now been transferred outside the United Kingdom altogether to Brussels, but none has been transferred to Wales where the Welsh Office administers London-made decisions.
Behind these London-made decisions lies the powerful Civil Service in Whitehall. Its membership has grown since the disappearance of the Empire, but its nature has not changed. For the most part, its members are Oxbridge men and women who attended the same schools—Harrow, Winchester, Eton, Rugby and so on. About three-quarters of the members of the Civil Service in London attended those schools. They are tenaciously determined to cling to and to keep power in their hands in Whitehall. Those who want power transferred to the hands of the people of Wales and of Scotland have no more tenacious opponents than the civil servants in Whitehall. However much Governments may change in colour, this public school Mafia,

as it has been called, remains constantly in the background and, to a great extent, remains constantly in control.
When we last debated the present and future of Scotland and Wales, two other European States could be associated with Britain as the last bastions of unitary centralism. They were France and Spain. But a few weeks ago the land of Franco's long dictatorship amazingly proved that it could become—and become in a peaceful way—a democracy. That would have been utterly unthinkable a couple of years ago. But now it is possible that the Catalans and the Basques will enjoy a measure of autonomy before the Scots and the Welsh.
The results of the elections were extraordinary. I should like to quote from The Times of 20th June, which stated that
Basque congressmen and senators, elected in the general election, demanded the re-establishment of their autonomous government, which was suppressed by General Franco.
More than 30 of the 42 congressmen and senators from the Basque country went to Guernica, the spiritual centre of the region, and swore allegiance to their traditional rights. …
In the Basque country the Workers' Socialist Party won nine Congress seats; the Basque nationalist party eight; the Democratic Centre Union, seven; the Basque left, one; and the neo-Francoist Popular Alliance, one.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans: When I have finished this point, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
In the Senate the autonomous Front, comprising the Workers' Socialist Party, the Basque nationalists and others won 10 seats and the Democratic Centre Union five. These results were an overwhelming victory for the movement in favour of autonomy. …
In Catalonia, the other area with strong aspirations to autonomy, a similar move is taking place. The election results there, as in the Basque country, were a clear victory for the forces favouring autonomy. The Workers' Socialist Party, which formed an electoral pact with the Catalan Socialist Party specifically over autonomy, won 15 Congress seats. …
In the Senate almost all of the 16 seats went to the parties favouring autonomy, including the Socialists.

Mr. Anderson: The fundamental point that the hon. Gentleman misses is that the autonomous parties in Spain, whether the Catalan or Basque parties, are winning seats, whereas, at the last General


Election, over three-quarters of Plaid Cymra candidates lost their deposits. There lies the essential difference. In Spain they want autonomy; in Wales they have rejected it.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman would not like to see Wales enjoying self-government even if my party won all 36 seats there. He opposes self-government for Wales on principle.
Among the facts that emerge from the article that I quoted from The Times are, first, the strength of Basque and Catalan nationalism—

Mr. Anderson: By contrast with the strength of the hon. Gentleman's party?

Mr. Evans: Labour Members must wait until the next General Election. If they want to see what is happening they need only look at the happening they need only look at the results that our party has been achieving in local elections. It has won a higher proportion of the seats than our friends in the Scottish National Party in Scotland. We have done extremely well and we are making tremendous progress. Our position will be still further improved in the next General Election and the next round of local elections.
A further point that emerges from the article that I quoted is the positive response of the Spanish Government to the demand for autonomy from the nations of the Basques and Catalans. A third point that emerges—which some Labour Members will not like—is the close liaison between nationalists and Socialists. Already in this context Spanish democracy is beginning to show signs of greater maturity than British democracy, but it is still very new and the power of the Army lurks in the background there.
The influence of British leadership could be considerable. A swift advance of Scottish and Welsh autonomy could not fail but help Spain. It could have a profound effect on Europe in leading to a more flexible European order. Therefore the nationalism of Wales and Scotland must be seen not in a narrow British context, but against the background of Europe and the world.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Am I right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman recently visited the conference of the Scottish National Party, where he swore eternal Celtic brotherhood in the fight against English imperialism? Does he not now feel nauseated that they then should have said to him "But watch it. No Welshman will get a halfpence worth of Scottish oil"?

Mr. Evans: I do not think that that is a true representation of what our SNP friends have said. No doubt that point will be answered later in the debate.
I repeat my point about the value of British leadership in Europe. Welsh and Scottish nationalism must be seen against a European and world background, and that is how Welsh and Scottish nationalists see themselves. A recent book of note by Tom Nairn says that
the Welsh national party is without doubt the least parochial or 'narrow nationalist' mass movement in British politics".
It is true that we have always seen our country and our nationalism against a wider background than the background of these islands alone. But the move towards full national status for the small nations of these islands must start somewhere.
Of the two parties which contend for Government status, the initiative can come only from the Labour Party. The Tories have opposed almost every advance that has been made—

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Irrespective of the views of individual Labour Members on devolution—I do not want the hon. Gentleman to dwell on that—he has stated that devolution can come only with a Labour Government. Can he explain for what conceivable reason he and his party voted with the Conservative Party on a vote of confidence to bring down the Government and to establish a Tory Government?

Mr. Evans: That vote of confidence concerned the whole record of the Government, and nobody who knows the facts about Wales can express any confidence in a Government with such a record, although I shall not pretend that the alternative is any better.
It is a matter of historical fact that the Tories have opposed almost every advance towards giving more power to


the people, from the Reform Act of 1832, past the Chartists and the story of Ireland, to the Welsh Radicals at the end of the nineteenth century, to disestablishment, and, in this century, their opposition even to a Secretary of State for Wales and the establishment of the Welsh Development Agency. The opposition of the Conservative Party now to any concession on self-government for Wales or Scotland is consistent with its historical reactionary opposition to more power for the people.
Modern Welsh Conservatives are no more burdened with a sense of loyalty to Wales than were their fathers and forefathers. It is not that this loyalty has been eroded—it never existed. One is not surprised that they are as unaware of the long and fascinating past of Wales as they are unconcerned about ensuring a national future for Wales, and that they are strangers to the value of Welsh civilisation and to the quality of life that that represents. The chauvinist ethos of past British imperialism still dominates their attitude.

Mr. Russell Johnston: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, very philosophically, about the present Conservative Party in Wales, will he give an opinion whether, in this circumstance, it is better for the Liberal Party to co-operate with the Government in seeking to establish a measure of self-government for Wales, or whether it is better for his party to co-operate with the Conservatives in seeking to prevent it?

Mr. Evans: The best thing that can happen for the future of Wales is that Welsh nationalism should have a bigger representation in this House. That is why we should welcome an election as soon as possible, but we are not likely to have one very quickly.
This attitude of the Conservatives did not matter so much when the State was weak and peripheral, but now the State has become dominant and almost all-powerful. It is now the nation which is peripheral, and as such its very life is threatened.
That is what we in Wales are now fighting for—the life of the nation.
Despite this, there is reason to think that a Tory Government led by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition

would provide the biggest boost that Welsh nationalism could possibly have. It would unite radicals and nationalists in Wales as they have never been united before, just as they are united now in the Basque country and amongst the Catalans.
The choice for the Welsh people between Labour and Conservatives in Wales is like the choice between Scylla and Charybdis. It is seen not only in the history of unemployment, depopulation and migration from our country over generations, but in almost every aspect of our country's life today.
I have asked a series of Questions which have adduced answers such as the following. The gross domestic product for England still far exceeds that for Wales. The estimated income and wealth per head is still considerably higher in England than in Wales. The activity rate for males in England is 81·6 per cent. and in Wales it is 78·5 per cent. For females in England the figure is 43·27 per cent. and for females in Wales it is 35·7 per cent. Hidden unemployment is thus worse in Wales than it is in England. Thirty-one per cent. of English schools were built wholly or partly before 1903. In Wales it is 37 per cent.
The expectation of life is lower in Wales than in England. Expenditure on housing has been considerably lower per head of population in Wales than in England throughout the years. Information is available on this. According to a parliamentary answer given to me, about 5 per cent. of the total stock of housing in England is estimated to be unfit for use, while in Wales the figure is 10 per cent. Almost twice as much has been spent per mile on roads in England as on roads in Wales during recent decades. Again, according to the Answer that I was given a short while ago, £5,469,000 has been spent on civil aviation aerodromes in England and Scotland compared with £182,000 in Wales. In England more than 2,000 miles of railways are electrified while not a single mile of railway has been electrified in Wales. In Norway 58 per cent. of the railway track has been electrified and in Sweden the figure is 62 per cent.
In spite of the situation that I have described, the Government have not yet devised an economic development plan for


Wales. Such a plan has not even been attempted. If one looks at cultural matters one finds that the Government know well that television is doing the most damage to the Welsh language today especially among children and young people. The Government have decided that Wales should have the use of the fourth television channel, and yet they are taking no action. However, in Western Germany the Government have set up an English television system for the British troops in recent years at a cost equivalent to that which would have to be spent on a Welsh television channel.
In these circumstances, Wales urgently needs a Parliament of its own. Such a Parliament should be more than a strong voice. It should be a legislature with adequate economic powers. That has been demanded by the NUM, the Transport and General Workers Union and the Welsh TUC. Such a legislature would give Wales a place in all the institutions in Brussels. The people of Wales must become responsible for their own lives. We have a form of representative Government, but most colonies had a form of representative Government in the past. Our demand is for responsible Government and, just as each human being must have responsibility for his or her own life, so must a nation be responsible. Wales and Scotland are nations. That was recognised in the dead Scotland and Wales Bill and by the Kilbrandon Commission. What is needed, and is lacking, is the will to allow Scotland and Wales to act as nations.
I must admit that we are sceptical about the Government's intentions—in spite of their declarations. If the Government yield to the demand for two Bills we shall take that as an indication that the Government are cynically playing for time. There has already been a delay of a year and if there is more delay there will be grave consequences for the economic, social and cultural life of Wales. There is reason to suspect that the Government will continue to play for time while the gallonage of oil flowing from off the shores of Scotland mounts by the million. The Government could even delay the measure long enough for it to be bogged down in the House of Lords. The Prime Minister might then decide that it was time for a General Election and would go

to the country saying that the Government had kept their word, had done their best, and had acted according to their manifesto promises. The Government would claim that it was the House of Lords that had held the measure back.
It is not surprising that we are rather cynical about the Government's intentions because we have had long experience. We know what hapened to the home rule all round movement and what has happened since the early 1960's. It is since then that the Labour Party has decided that we must have an elected Assembly or Council. We know what has happened since the Crowther or Kilbrandon Commission has been sitting. We recall that during the last 25 years—while Wales has remained constitutionally in the same place—some 36 countries of the British Empire have received self-government The one thing that would encourage a sense of trust in the Government would be for them to introduce an early timetable motion for another Scotland and Wales Bill and for them to make that Bill an issue of confidence.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mellish: I believe that I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), who will reply to the debate for the Scottish National Party, has only just arrived and that he has therefore missed the two opening speeches of the debate by the so-called nationalist party leaders. The hon. Gentleman has not missed anything but a first-class comedy act.
I cannot believe that this is supposed to be a censure motion. I wish that the procedures of the House were broadcast on television and radio so that people could see the performance of these two great leaders of the so-called great national parties and hear them orating. I never heard such rubbish. There was not a single mention of the Government's economic policies or of the national parties' alternatives. Instead there was an argument about whether the Government have introduced devolution plans
One point that I have not heard mentioned is that if the motion were carried the Prime Minister's salary cut by half—and I assume that that is a motion of censure, because I know of nothing more terrifying—the Government resigned and


the Tories became the Government of the day, the nationalists would be further away from devolution than they ever have been in their lives. That is the stupidity of the argument. I much regret that those speeches were not broadcast so that decent Welsh and Scottish people could hear the stupidity that has been talked by Scottish and Welsh national party leaders and their supporters today.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend took the point that was made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans). The hon. Gentleman said that he envisaged that if there were an election and a Government formed who were led by the present Leader of the Opposition, that would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is what the national parties were thinking of in tabling a censure motion.

Mr. Mellish: That only goes to show how thick they are, does it not? Of course I heard the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) mention that, and I understand it. I bitterly resent that the hon. Member for Carmarthen said that there are those of us in the House and in the country who are not multinational. I was born in London and have lived here all my life and I have news for the hon. Member for Carmarthen: we have more Welshmen and Scots in London than there are in Scotland and Wales. We Londoners have had to put up with something over the years. I understand that conditions in Scotland and Wales in past years under consecutive stinking lory Governments have driven these people south to obtain work and decent conditions. However, to say that we are not multinational—well! There is not a street in my constituency—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart) rose—

Mr. Mellish: They were lousy, stinking Tory Governments.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Could the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) tell me from his long memory of politics when under a Tory Government unemployment in Scotland was as high as it is today?

Mr. Mellish: My memory goes back a considerable while. The poverty of

the 1930s should never be seen again in this country. The slogan of the Labour Party yesteryear was "Work or maintenance". At least the Government have carried out the promise of maintenance. Indeed, the argument today is not so much about unemployment as about the rate of unemployment benefit being as much as is received by those at work who are low paid and about that equality being removed.
I have seen and lived through the poverty of yesteryear and I have seen the stinking record of Tory Governments. It was that which brought the Scots and the Welsh to London. The national parties are impertinent to talk against this Labour Government, knowing that their motion today could bring in a Tory Government and knowing the history of Tory Governments. The national parties would do that and claim that it was in the interest of the Welsh and the Scots.

Mr. Crawford: Mr. Crawford rose—

Mr. Mellish: All right. But it had better be good.

Mr. Crawford: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will be good. It matters not one jot or tittle what party is in control of this House. If the majority of people in Scotland and Wales vote for self-government, this House cannot gainsay them.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman can claim to know more about Scotland than I could ever hope to know. But I cannot believe that the intelligent, decent people who live in Scotland accept that as a simple statement and do not give a tuppenny damn whether there is a Labour or Tory Government in this House just because they are concerned only with self-government. I do not believe it; I cannot believe it. Certainly with the great traditions of the Welsh I would not take it from any Welshman on the Opposition side of the House that that is what is in their minds.
I have said what I think about that lot on the Opposition Benches and on the nationalist Benches. I hope that the silly motion is defeated. It is not really worth discussing. However, we might as well talk about that as anything else, I suppose.
Now, may I talk about devolution as I see it as an ex-Chief Whip? I believe that the Government made a great mistake in introducing the devolution Bill without a timetable motion in this Session of Parliament. I know what was said—that it was asking too much to introduce the guillotine motion. I have always argued that with an issue of this kind there has to be a different form of timetable motion. It cannot be the one that we usually have, which says that certain parts of a Bill must be dealt with at a certain time, when the Chair will rise and the guillotine fall. That type of motion must be out. This is a great constitutional matter and a considerable amount of time must be given to it.
Devolution involves changing the constitution of our country and therefore must be considered carefully. What type of guillotine motion are we talking about? I have always believed that we should say to my hon. Friends and Conservative Members who are anti-devolutionists "The Government are to bring in a devolution Bill." I never supported that principle, but once the Government brought in the Bill, I decided to support it on Second Reading and I would have supported a guillotine motion.
Supposing that the next devolution Bill is introduced in November of this year, just after the Gracious Speech, I suggest that the Government say that the Bill will have a Third Reading on 3rd June 1978. On so great an issue it is important that we have the time to discuss it. The Government should say that on 3rd June 1978 the Chair will rise, irrespective of the state the Bill is in, and put the Question, "That the Bill be read the Third time." That is the sort of guillotine I would propose.
There is no man or woman in the House who could deny that this issue is not worthy of a lengthy debate, whether they are for the Bill or against it, whether they are Londoners, like me, who are aghast at the thought of Scotland and Wales claiming more power than London, or regional Members. On a matter of this kind a lengthy period should be given for debate.
I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench "All right, you have had one try and

you have mucked it up. You have messed that right up. If you really believe you are to introduce another Bill, which will have to be in the Gracious Speech, and are hoping that, with a bit of luck, somehow it will work out all right, you are wasting your time unless you go for a guillotine." I have listened to many of the debates on devolution, although I have never taken part in any of them. I concede that there is a special case for a referendum in Wales and for a separate Bill for Wales. It may be that that is the way we should tackle the situation.
I do not expect the Tories to be constructive about anything. They are concerned only with a General Election. They hope and pray, almost hourly, for such an event. The Leader of the Opposition is on her bended knees at night praying to her favourite saints, hoping that there will be a General Election soon in case the economic conditions improve and she does not get power.
The lack of patriotism of that shower over there is incredible. They do not want the economic position to improve. The very thought that Britain will get out of its financial problems is a disaster for the Tory Party so much are the Tories concerned with power. Patriotism means nothing to that silly crowd.
What the Scottish and Welsh nationalists do not understand is that the Tories are like—I was about to say "bugs in the bed" but I cannot say that. There will always be Tories with us, no matter what we do. I say to those who have tabled this motion "Watch your actions carefully if you want devolution. You will not get devolution by a change of Government or by silly motions and stupid speeches."

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: It is an excellent thing that the nationalist parties in the House should have a whole day to raise the questions which they believe to be the most important. However grudgingly and insufficient is the recognition of the Labour and Conservative Parties that attitudes different from their own not only exist but are able to attract significant support among the electorate, any movement at all is welcome.
This recognition is all the more a comment on the sluggish illogicality of the


situation when the Liberals, with about 5¼ million votes at the last election against about 1¼ million votes polled by the nationalists, receive only a half-day for debate compared with the nationalists' whole day. This is not a criticism of the nationalists. They might reasonably remark that our parity with them in Scottish Estimates is unreasonable. It is simply an observation that this Parliament is not very good, as an institution, at reacting quickly to political change. The two parties which are accustomed to take turns in Government have been rather slow to respond to democratic change as expressed in the ballot box.
While I am still in the business of not criticising the nationalists, let me say that I do want to criticise their choice of motion. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who has left the Chamber, quoted the Daily Record. May I take the opportunity to do likewise? After all, it has the greatest circulation in Scotland. Stewart MacLauchlan, the political columnist of that paper, suggested that it would have been better for the nationalists to concentrate specifically on unemployment, hoping in this way to win some support in the Division from unhappy Labour Members. I do not think that that would prove anything at all. We know perfectly well that there are Labour Members who are rightly unhappy about the unemployment situation, in precisely the same way as we in the Liberal Party are unhappy, and in the same way as those in the Tory and the nationalist parties are unhappy.
It is old-fashioned to argue that somehow one group of people in politics is more concerned about unemployment than another. I do not argue that at all. If the nationalists have the opportunity of a day to present their case it is reasonable for them to adopt a general approach. I do not criticise that. Let me consider the motion. One could say that it is not exactly devastatingly original. It is obvious, if one does not see any way of working with a Government that one is unlikely to have much confidence in that Government and thus might sympathise with the idea of reducing the Prime Minister's salary.
The important question is whether, under our system, which allows a Government to go on for five years, that Government is under an obligation, faced

with by-elections and opinion polls which are not very good, to go for a General Election. That is the argument with which we are faced and with which we are being presented day in and day out.
It was not an argument that appeared to have a great effect upon the Conservative Government in 1962 and 1963, as I recall. I was an active candidate in the field at the time and, naturally enough, as all candidates in that situation did, I was calling for a General Election. The Conservatives were being hammered in the opinion polls and by-elections. They did not then take the view that this necessarily meant that they had some obligation to go to the country.
It is a piece of absolute utter nonsense, not to mention humbug, to suggest that a Government unpopular in mid-term, operating within a constitution in which it is normally accepted that a Government can run for five years if they can maintain their majority in the House, have any moral obligation to call a General Election. That is humbug. There is no precedent for it and no justifiable argument to support it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I take it from what the hon. Gentleman has said, with what might be some significance, that the Liberals are determined to keep the Government in power until the last possible moment for the full five-year term.

Mr. Johnston: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to run on ahead of me—although that is not something that he often does, anyway. I shall come shortly to the matter that he has raised.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Tell me.

Mr. Johnston: I should like to keep the hon. Gentleman in suspense.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I bet.

Mr. Johnston: I am not a betting man at all, but if I were I would normally take bets that I would win.
I return directly to the motion and the speech with which the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) introduced it. It is very important to disentangle the reality from the rhetoric. It is worth saying—and I am here being critical of the Labour Benches—that if at present we had a Tory Government—let us imagine that prospect—and if everything else was exactly the same, exactly the same


unemployment figures, the same deprivation figures that the right hon. Member for Western Isles quoted, the teacher surplus and the rest, the attacks made upon the Government by the right hon. Member for Western Isles would have been cheered by Labour Members. That is a fact, and we ought to remember that if we are to take any lesson out of the present situation and perhaps work out some better way of doing things.

Mr. Bucban: I have been listening with great interest to the most serious contribution that we have had from the Opposition side of the House. However, with all due respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in his last remark. We would not have welcomed a speech that suggested that the only unemployment with which we were concerned was Scottish unemployment, that the only transport problems with which we were concerned were Scottish problems and that the only children with whom we were concerned were Scottish children. On the contrary, we take a rather better view than that, as I think the hon. Gentleman accepts.

Mr. Johnston: Let me put it another way. I am sure that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) will accept that if we were having a debate on the Scottish economy, with a Conservative Government in power, and speeches critical of the Government on these issues were being made, there would be rather less reticence on the Labour Benches.
The Liberal view, which was determined in March when we entered a short-term agreement with the Government—which is now under further discussion—is that it is reasonable and rational in a Parliament in mid-term, following two General Elections in one year, to try to find agreement, if we can, about tackling the serious and difficult problems that the right hon. Member for Western Isles catalogued. That is our opinion. It is not an opinion which some have regarded particularly sympathetically, but that is our opinion.
Given an acceptance of the gravity and the deep-seated nature of our economic problems, we think that to look for ways of working together is more important than emphasising differences, magnifying failures and exaggerating expectations. It

was for these reasons that, despite many differences in objectives, we looked for areas of agreement with the Government and are continuing to do so.
I want to spend a little time in looking at the motion, specifically in regard to its effects if it were carried.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. May I ask him specifically about one of the issues of agreement, the issues under discussion? If there has been one point that has been reiterated by Liberal spokesmen over and over again in the last three years, it is that there should be a continuing statutory incomes policy. Liberal speaker after Liberal speaker, the last Liberal manifesto, and so on, have all made the point that it is absolutely essential to have a statutory incomes policy. The Government claim that they have never had a statutory incomes policy, although, of course, there is a statute that embodies such a policy. However, if the Government now have no form of incomes policy, will the Liberal Party smile and run along with them or stand by the policy that Liberals have enunciated so frequently?

Mr. Johnston: It is perfectly true that we fought the last General Election on a statutory incomes policy. It is equally true that in entering the agreement with the Government we said that we looked to the Government's success in achieving some form of phase 3 negotiations with the trade unions. We did not say—and we recognise the situation, as successive Governments of both major parties have recognised it—that one could ask in the present circumstances for a statutory prices and incomes policy, because it would have been quite lunatic to try to do so. That is the short answer.
I return to what I was saying. I should like to look briefly at the motion and its effects if it were carried on two things—devolution and economic matters, which are of fundamental importance.
I come first to devolution. If the current opinion polls are true—one can never be certain of that—a General Election now, after the necessary formalities taking between three and five weeks would result in a nationalist majority in Scotland—God preserve us—and a Conservative majority in the United


Kingdom. That is what the polls tell us. I am not commenting on whether they are true, but that is the spectacle that is laid before us as a tasty bite. I am talking about devolution at present, and the choice for Scotland offered would be all or nothing—literally so. "All the way with D. Stewart"—which unfortunately does not rhyme—or "Not so steady with Teddy"—which does rhyme.
There is conclusive evidence, I think, that across the board people in Scotland want self-government, want it to be established effectively, and want it firstly within the ambit of the United Kingdom and, secondly, within the ambit of the EEC. There is a lot of evidence to argue that that is so.
I accept that the situation in Wales is not exactly the same. The Leader of Plaid Cymru knows that that is so. The degree of pressure for Welsh self-government is different, and it is different in each party. That is the fact of the matter, and we should recognise it.
Liberals were criticised very much by nationalists for voting against the guillotine on the original double-headed devolution Bill. We were rather categorised as traitors to the whole self-government cause. [Interruption.] I thought that the applause would be rather louder.
I remember that Margo MacDonald descended on my constituency—she is a lady who will be within the recollection of the House—rather like Brunhild from Valhalla and told my constituents that she regarded me as a reasonably decent chap but one who could never be forgiven for his betrayal and his killing of the Bill. One rather got the impression that if I had voted for the guillotine she would never have rested until she had canvassed the last constituent in the furthest isle to vote for me.
The reality of the matter was that on the guillotine vote the nationalists were prepared to accept anything, because it suited their political book. Our opinion was, and remains—this is what we have been trying to do in the last three or four months—that we regard the discussions that we have been having with the Government on whether an effective devolution Bill can be established and whether we can reach some reasonable compromise—and I spoke about the area for compromise when we had the first debates

on the original Bill—as having been throughout of a constructive and positive nature. Having condemned us for voting against the guillotine motion, it is not reasonable to condemn us for trying to work with the Government to make things better. The SNP cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The hon. Member obviously follows the opinion polls. Does he also follow the policies implied by the opinion polls and the implied demise of the Liberal Party?

Mr. Johnston: I have indicated that I have no great faith in opinion polls. I regard them as transitory. They are a reflection of matters as they are at the moment. I do not deny that the Liberal Party is under pressure. That is a fact.

Mr. Anderson: The hon. Member mentioned a young lady who had chided him for not supporting the Bill. Is she the same young lady who says that she wants not devolution in Scotland but independence?

Mr. Johnston: I think that she is. Obviously the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), like so many others, asks a question only when he already knows the answer.
I turn to the economy. That is an important matter. I was concerned that neither the right hon. Member for Western Isles nor the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) spent much time on that subject. The whole of the United Kingdom is engaged in a difficult situation. The Government are seeking to control inflation and negotiating with the trade unions. There is also the problem of the level of price and wage increases next year. All those matters will affect each of us and each of our constituents. They are tied in with the future of the country.
In March we faced the possibility of a General Election immediately before the Budget and some months before an attempt to negotiate Phase 3. Her Majesty's loyal Opposition failed to produce any coherent strategy for prices or incomes and they have still failed so to do. It is not many days since they led the House through many weary hours in their attempt to prevent any type of price control. In that situation, whatever the differences—and we recognise that differences exist—we believed that it was better in the national interest as we see


it to try to work with the present administration.
We have not yet had the delectable pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). I shall wait for that promised moment. We are in negotiation with the Government and we wish to find agreement. Unless that is our aim there is no point in entering negotiation. First, we want to see an effective and acceptable devolution Bill on the statute book. We do not want any messing about. We want something that will work. We also want to see the economic problems of the United Kingdom resolved without the bitterness of which the Grunwick dispute is but the tip of the iceberg.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I thought that this was to be a serious debate. We must thank the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) for injecting a rational tone into the debate. I do not think that I have ever attended a debate involving a confidence motion that was put forward in a worse manner. It is a shame for Scotland. There is a strong argument about Scottish unemployment. There is an even stronger case to be made against the Government's economic policy. It was not made.
Why was the decision made to have this debate? Was it merely because the Scottish National Party is on a popularist trend? Was it because nationalists allied themselves with the Tories or because they want to provoke a General Election? None of those possibilities makes sense. Ally themselves with the Tories? The Tories have come out against devolution. Was it because they object to the failure of the devolution Bill? Whoever else's fault it was, it was certainly not the Government's. The Scottish National Party Conference recently came out in favour of total independence rather than devolution.
Do the Scottish nationalists think that they can now convert the Tories into believing in complete independence? What other explanation have we? We are still waiting to hear why they wish to reduce the Prime Minister's salary. I have a decided interest here because I am one who at another time cut his salary because of disagreement with his

own Government's policy, so I have certain rights. We still do not know which policies they would put in the place of present policies. The first requirement of a no confidence motion is to demonstrate why no confidence exists. They have failed to do that. The corollary to a no confidence motion is that the party proposing it must suggest a better alternative. We have not had an alternative. I wonder whether the SNP is fit to form an alternative government.
If there is a growth industry in Scotland today, it is in the publication of books about Scotland. I recall that "Scotland 1980" and "Input-Output Analysis" by the Allander Institute were hailed in advance by the SNP as proof of their case. They said that those publications would demonstrate the successful viability of an independent Scotland. The input-output analysis was going to prove that Scotland was in surplus. But that did not happen. Indeed "Scotland 1980" is not a good book. It is the first attempt for some time to try to make an economic analysis of the possibilities of an independent Scotland. It was drawn up by people outside the SNP although they were sympathisers of that party. They made the best possible assumptions. They assumed the continued membership of the EEC and that Scotland would get 70 per cent. of oil revenues.
The SNP promised that with the oil revenues they would abolish not only hypothermia but virtually old age. They regarded the book as a blueprint for their policies. Then they discovered that none of this can be done, that oil revenues cannot be used immediately to increase wages, nor to create social benefits. A horse and cart has been driven through the entire SNP policy, and we have had silence ever since. I should have liked to hear a withdrawal of the SNP's premature hailing of that book, with all its weaknesses, of which it has plenty, or at least a withdrawal of the previous welcome to it.
The truth is that the SNP is in a fundamental difficulty in relation to the economy—a difficulty which it has never faced. The United Kingdom economy is now a highly integrated economy. This is rather different from the question of centralised decision-making. There is also a much deeper structural integration


of the entire United Kingdom economy. Second, there is the new phenomenon of the development of the multinational company. Third, there is the intermeshing between Government institutions and the economy itself.
All these factors create a paradoxical situation for the Scottish National Party. The integration will remain even if Scotland goes separate. The intermeshing of the remaining nine-tenths of government, that is, English and Welsh government, with the single economy will remain. All the Scottish nationalists will succeed in doing by withdrawing any say on their part in the single United Kingdom economy will be to reduce the influence of Scotland upon that economy and, by definition, put Scotland into a neo-colonialist position. The truth is that that which they believe they can operate with more independence they will in fact be unable to operate at all. That is the reality facing them.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is not the argument which the hon. Gentleman is putting vis-à-vis Scotland and the United Kingdom the same basic argument vis-à-vis the United Kingdom and the European Community?

Mr. Buchan: No. I pointed to three strands, and one of them is extremely important, the intermeshing of Government institutions with the economy. That still existed as we entered the EEC and, since I believe that some of our national interests are rather different from those of the EEC as a whole, I want that continued intermeshing to remain in a United Kingdom context. Whether it will if the hon. Gentleman and his party have their way is another question, but that is another reason why I am opposed to our further involvement in the EEC. But I am dealing with the situation as it is, not with the situation which the hon. Gentleman and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends wish it to be.
The truth is that there is hardly a problem to which the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), the Leader of the SNP, referred which would be easier of solution if Scotland was a separate State. Thus, the Scottish National Party is led into an increasingly contradictory position. I heard the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), in one four-line ques-

tion, enunciate, on the one hand, a call for devaluation of the green pound and, on the other, a call for a strengthening of the Scottish pound. This, of course, would bring about the worst of all possible worlds—higher prices for the farmer and therefore a bashing of the housewife, with higher import costs for the farmer—showing that the SNP is the only party which can succeed in enunciating in four lines a policy which would clobber both farmer and housewife. This sort of thing goes on all the time.
How is the SNP shown up by its record in facing these difficult and subtle problems? There is a simple solution for it. It could recognise the inhibitions which such a position creates and say that it is prepared nevertheless to go along with it. But it does not do that. It is basically a Poujadiste populist party, and either through intellectual failure, which is a considerable feature within the party, or through a deep ingrained dishonesty, it is impelled to believe that, because anything which it enunciates is in its interest as a party, it must be true. In fact, the truth is that SNP has a bad record of populism.
I recall the Scottish nationalists' attacks on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, a Bill vital to the well-being of thousands of working people in Scotland, on the Clyde, in Aberdeen and in Dundee. Not only did they not support it but they treated it with the grossest contempt. Moreover, they contemptuously rejected the protests made to us by workers in the industry. They contemptuously rejected the protests made to them by the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman quote the STUC this afternoon in support of his case after what he and his colleagues did to the telegrams arriving from the STUC, calling them bogus, tearing them up and throwing them across the Floor of the House of Commons. That is another indication of the SNP's attitude.
The same sort of thing happened when we were discussing a Bill in Committee at a time when a group of workers, 5,000 of them at a factory in my constituency, were fighting for the expansion of the electricity generating industry. The SNP energy spokesman attacked the idea of more money going under that Bill to our generating programme, although his policy would have meant an immediate cut in the Scottish electricity generating


industry and consequently a threat to the jobs of 5,000 Scottish workers.
We see the same problem facing the SNP when it asks for separation and ignores the relationship between industry in Scotland and the nationalised industries in the United Kingdom as a whole. A separate Scotland would mean that Babcock and Wilcox would close at once, although 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the output is for English and Welsh nationalised industries. That would all be finished tomorrow.
We see it also where the SNP is coming to power in local councils. In my district, one of its first propositions was to call for the postponing of the arts centre in Paisley, yet during its campaign it had had that project as a matter of criticism of the existing district council, saying that it had failed to build an arts centre. The moment it came to power the SNP led the attack against it. Incidentally, on the very same afternoon it demanded that the Renfrew District Council should pay for the hire of bands for the SNP for its Wallace Day celebrations.
We see the same attitude displayed towards Chrysler, where 7,000 workers were fighting to preserve their jobs. The SNP spokesman who turned up at the factory where a fight was going on for Scottish jobs and Scottish industry arrived in a Datsun. When the workers objected to this as a pretty poor gesture, he said "It is not my Datsun; it is my wife's. I drive a Volvo." That sort of insensitivity and stupidity, if I may say so, parallels the insensitivity and stupidity of SNP policies generally.
As regards Chrysler, the SNP produced, I think, four contrasting and contradictory solutions. It was opposed to the Government's solution. It then voted for the Government's solution. It then said that the whole of Chrysler in the United Kingdom, except at Linwood, should be closed down, ignoring that we should then have had no cars because the engines came from Coventry. This was more than just stupid and insensitive, for many of the workers in Coventry—this is a regrettable fact, and the reasons are not palatable—came from Scotland, and a good many of the shop stewards and workers' leaders in Coventry are Scots. The SNP said that Coventry should go

to the wall. That is hardly a nice thing to say to the children and relatives of other Scots workers at Chrysler in Scotland.

Mr. Crawford: My right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) was attacked and challenged about the date, place and time of a statement which he attributed to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). Would the hon. Gentleman give us the place, date and time at which the statement about Coventry which he attributes to the SNP was made?

Mr. Buchan: Yes, the place was here, and before the debate is finished I shall give the hon. Gentleman the precise Hansard reference, if I have opportunity.

Mr. Crawford: And the quotation?

Mr. Buchan: Yes, the quotation was that "Coventry should go to the wall". That was it, and many hon. Members now here heard it. The hon. Gentleman shall have his quotation. We on this side do not make assertions of that kind without the record to bear them out. I can take the matter a little further if the hon. Gentleman wishes to provoke me. The SNP spokesman on the motor car industry, after voting for it, attacked the settlement and said that the £162 million should have been used to plant trees in Scotland. That was the sort of opinion which he was prepared to enunciate in this place, and I shall produce the date for that, too.
As I say, we see evidence of the SNP attitude at district level. We see it, for example, in its opposition to the Craigmillar festival. It shows a hatred for any cultural manifestation in Paisley, and we see the same attitude in Edinburgh. There was also the SNP attack in Edinburgh. When the populist line was to be on the ratepayers' side, the SNP attempted to stop old people's concessionary fares. We do not hear a similar argument in areas where there is a predominance of council problems.
There are also the errors of omission of the SNP. Nothing has been more shameful in the great intellectual tradition of Scotland than the succession of letters which appeared in Scotland's national newspaper, the Scotsman, throughout January and February, which were directly racialist, Anglophobic and


printed without demur or editorial comment, but, furthermore, were printed without demur from the SNP. Not until months later did a member of the SNP, Professor MacCormick—not Iain but Neil—demur about the tone of the letters.
The mainspring of many of the arguments of the leadership of the SNP is Anglophobia. I heard Margo MacDonald say that if she had a holiday, she would like to go to see the Basques or to see the Catalonians in Catalonia. Has she forgotten that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) was one of the few members of the European Parliament who failed to support a motion condemning the Franco Government—incidentally, a movement led by the Pope—for their killing of five Basques by garrotting in Madrid? That was a shameful moment for Scotland.
We remember the SNP's silence about a football match which took place in Chile when, in spite of opportunity after opportunity, its members failed to show where they stood. Two days before the game, the SNP's Chairman, Billy Wolfe, had the impertinence, in a letter, to criticise British Ministers for not objecting to the match. They had objected. But we heard nothing from the SNP until that moment. [Interruption.] If it is not true, please tell me—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Read Hansard.

Mr. Buchan: Tell me the place, time and quotation. The SNP is a contemptibly populist party, and it is time that it recognised it.

Mrs. Bain: Plainly the hon. Gentleman does not study Hansard very frequently. Presumably he was absent when the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) asked a Question about the Scottish Football Association and Chile and my right hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), in a supplementary question, supported him.

Mr. Buchan: I should like to see the wording of that. The first official comment on the game was made by the Chairman of the SNP about three days before the match.

Mrs. Bain: Wrong again.

Mr. Buchan: Appeals were made to the SNP—and I know because I led the

campaign. [Interruption.] Let us have less of this nonsense. The whole of Scotland knows the position.
We know the attitude of the SNP even on matters affecting Scotland, and not only the shipbuilding industry. Its Members talk most about prices in Scotland, yet last week, in the vote on the Price Commission Bill, they refused to support the Government's attempt to introduce price control and abstained. In Committee they voted with the Tories to block the expenditure of more money on consumer advice centres for Scotland. The SNP has a tawdry record. It is a shameful record, and it gives little credence to a motion of this kind.

Mrs. Bain: What about the Lib-Lab pact?

Mr. Buchan: I am not proud of the Lib-Lab pact. I am against it. I do not think that we should have entered into an agreement of that kind. I am a Socialist and I want to achieve a Socialist majority which will follow Socialist aims. That will not happen through proportional representation.
Almost the first thing for which Councillor Stuart Ewing of Glasgow called was the creation of a public house in the city chambers. He said that the purpose was to prevent other councillors from having to go across the street for a drink. He gave us great reassurance by saying that he was a strict teetotaller, like the rest of his family.
Even more damning is the SNP's notorious canvasser's manual. If someone at the door says "I like Willie Ross", canvassers are told to answer:
A fine man! Then ad lib!
The manual also says:
The Golden Rule is: 'Find out the Voters views First' …".
One then tells them the benefits they will get by voting SNP on the basis of these views. One finds out the
motivating interests and needs of each Voter before trying to sell"—
I like the word in a political context—
the benefits to them and then showing him that he must vote SNP to get them.…. The advantage of this technique is that it is flexible"—
[Laughter.] I have not finished the quotation; hon. Members are pre-empting my punch-line—
while sounding natural and believable.


When an interviewer ends an interview, he should say
'Can I put you down as a Scotland Supporter then' (Smiling)".
The SNP compares politics with the selling of a car. The manual sets out what one needs to do. One shows how
related benefits might be presented to a particular Voter. It simply involves putting the 'product feature' and the derived voter's benefit into a compact and easily understandable sentence using the conjunction '… which means that …' Examples. Having found that the customer desires a high performance car for frequent motorway business trips, the sentence might come out thus: 'This car is fitted with the latest model V8 engine which means that you can maintain high cruising speed to get there quickly …' Similarly, having found that the Voter has some distance to travel to work each morning, the sentence might be delivered thus: 'The SNP is very concerned about inadequate public transport in Scotland which means that we are committed to act in the interest of all commuters such as yourself, Mr. Smith.'
The approach is certainly flexible. I hope that it is natural. I am afraid that it is not at all believable.
Then there is the curious business of the Tories' support for such a party as the SNP and such a motion as this in such a situation. They had to learn their populism somewhere. I do not believe that they have learned it from the great tradition of the democratic intellect in Scotland. It puzzles me trying to discover from where they have gained their skilful opportunism. We have an example on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor),
Who in the course of one resounding tick
Runs the whole gamut politic
And in the course of the succeeding tock
Runs just as briskly backwards round the clock.
The hon. Gentleman started this Session of Parliament as a devolutionist. He is ending it as a true blue Unionist.
Now that the Opposition have rejected devolution, I hope that the hon. Gentleman today will take the opportunity of saying that he is committed to devolution. We want some explanation for the Opposition's vote today. Are they seeking to ally with the SNP in introducing an even tougher devolution Bill or in order to help illustrate how they should make allies even with those with whom we disagree most profoundly?
It has been a shoddy experience this afternoon. The SNP are a very poor lot. There must be better people available. I wish the SNP would find them and send them here.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) for not developing serious themes, and as so far the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has only attacked the SNP, I was wondering at what point of his speech he would get on to developing serious themes.

Mr. Buchan: In the first place, the hon. Lady was not here. Secondly, I note her reassurance that my right hon. Friend is her right hon. Friend. But I give about as much credence to what the hon. Lady said as I gave to the statement of the councillor in Glasgow who wants to see a pub in the city chambers.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has done the same as everyone else in the debate. Everyone has said that all the speeches except his own have been rotten. Quite frankly, the hon. Gentleman's speech did not add a great deal, apart from showing his rather poisonous hatred, which is a rather sad thing, for the SNP.
I do not believe that the kinds of issue raised today, and the arguments put forward by the nationalists and others, will be beaten simply by calling names. We should be looking at the motion seriously, and looking also at the ways in which we can solve Scotland's problems.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) was accused by the Secretary of State for Scotland of saying nothing new. The Secretary of State said nothing new in his rather lengthy speech. It is a sad reflection on the utter complacency of the Government that, faced with all the problems, the record unemployment and the bankruptcy of economic ideas, we have, on what should have been a major occasion, the Secretary of State saying nothing new.
We had the advantage of hearing from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), who talked about many problems in Wales, including a low expectation of


life. According to what my Welsh colleagues have told me, the comment about a low expectation of life cannot be applied to the hon. Gentleman's speech, which I am told he has been making for 30 years with hardly a change.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) talked about the bad times under Tory Governments. Here again, the Government have to face up to the responsibility that there has not been a time in Britain when unemployment and inflation, to my knowledge, have been as high as now. That is the way in which we can judge the success of a Government.
However, the motion is about reducing the salary of the Prime Minister—a subject which no one seems to have mentioned in any great detail. Perhaps it is rather ungracious of the House to suggest that the Prime Minister's salary should be reduced when, as an above-average wage earner, he must have suffered from the policies of his own Government.
The Prime Minister has a basic salary of £20,000, plus a parliamentary allowance of £3,000, plus other allowances coming to £2,500, and certain other benefits. According to my calculations, he has seen his take-home pay reduced to less than £9,000 at 1974 prices. The main reason is that during the three years of the present Government we have seen inflation running at record levels, largely because the pound has been reduced to 56p in real value compared with when the Government came to power.

Mr. Canavan: Mr. Canavan rose—

Mr. Taylor: We are far from satisfied with the Prime Minister, and the sad fact is that his Administration has been marked by a continuous stream of optimistic forecasts, followed by a continuous stream of damaging measures and policy failures.

Mr. Canavan: Mr. Canavan rose—

Mr. Taylor: We heard the Prime Minister's latest forecast on Sunday, when he said that things are going to get a good bit better. When we are considering the position after three years of a Labour Government and in particular the record of the Prime Minister, we have to ask where is the evidence of all these remark-

able prophecies that things are going to get better.
There was the famous Healey inflation rate of 8 per cent. at the time of the 1974 General Election. This, too, has never happened. Indeed, the position has got much worse.
There was the statement from the Prime Minister in March 1976 that he regarded the present levels of unemployment as intolerable and unacceptable. A few months later he said that he would reduce unemployment. Since then, in the country as a whole it has gone up by 800,000, and the number of school leavers seeking jobs has increased by 12 times. If we exclude school leavers altogether, the numbers of unemployed in Scotland and the rest of the country are about twice what they were when the Government came to power.
Another good guide is living standards. According to parliamentary answers which I received on Wednesday of last week, real living standards for the average British family have gone down over the entire period. People are worse off in real terms.
As to tax, the Prime Minister said that something had to be done for middle management. The average family in Britain now finds that, whereas it was paying less than £8 a week in income tax when the Government came to power, it is now paying more than £17 a week.
I can well recall, as no doubt can many hon. Members, the Prime Minister attacking us by saying that the Conservative Government had piled up an alarming amount of overseas debt. But whereas in March 1974 the overseas debt was about £3 billion, it has since increased to over £16 billion.
When we look at the international assessment of the Government, we find that the pound has gone down by a quarter in three years. We therefore have unemployment and prices rocketing, real living standards going down, production static, and growth non-existent. We certainly cannot have confidence in a Government who have created this kind of position.
I am also worried a great deal about the extent to which the Prime Minister appears almost to have given up the battle against the Left-wing takeover of the Labour Party.

Mr. Buchan: Oh!

Mr. Taylor: It is a very real worry for democracy as a whole when we find standing for the National Executive of the Labour Party a Labour Member who wrote the kind of article that we saw in the Morning Star last week. This should interest the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), in view of his party's pact with the Government. In this article the hon. Member wrote:
I propose that the Communist Party stops contesting against Labour candidates electorally in local and national elections and, clears the way to seek re-affiliation to the Labour Party ".
One of our greatest fears is that the Prime Minister, by abandoning the principle of collective responsibility and by enabling the Left wing gradually to take over the National Executive and all the other organs of the Labour Party, is paving the way for a Left-wing takeover of the Labour Party to such a degree as will certainly not be good for democracy.
I am afraid that the Prime Minister has just been stumbling along, hoping that his economic sins, like those of the hon. Member for Inverness, will be washed away in a flood of oil.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I certainly hope that my sins will be washed away. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) indicated that his quotation was of relevance to me, will he say who wrote the article and when?

Mr. Taylor: It was a Labour Member of Parliament, the name of whose constituency escapes me for the moment. The hon. Member concerned is standing for the National Executive of the Labour Party. He is a prominent Member of the House. The article is rather significant of the move of the Labour Party to the extreme Left. This is what worries me about the Lib-Lab pact. I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness has thought about it, and also his electors.
The only real achievement of the Lib-Lab pact is to give the Prime Minister an opportunity of choosing the right date for the Socialists to hold a General Election. If by chance they are returned with an overall majority, all the moderation that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may think they have persuaded the Labour Party to accept will

be thrown away. Instead there will be five years of red-blooded Socialism.
All the hon. Gentleman is achieving by this silly and rather shoddy pact is to save the Liberal Party for a short time from extinction and to give the Socialists the opportunity to choose their right time for the General Election, so that we shall have five years of real Socialism and not the kinds of policies that we are having at the present time.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I apologise for interrupting again. The hon. Gentleman has been somewhat swingeing in his comments. With regard to the article that he quoted I would say that that member of the Labour Party in no way approved of the agreement between the Labour Government and the Liberal Party. To blame us for the views expressed in that article is a lot of rubbish.

Mr. Taylor: We shall get some idea of what the feeling about the Liberal Party is if that particular hon. Member—the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell)—is successful in the National Executive elections. The hon. Member for Inverness may know that the party that he is propping up has a new proposal for choosing the party leadership in which the National Executive, the unions and party members will be taking part. The hon. Member for Inverness is not, in fact, creating moderation in the Labour Party. All he is doing is propping up the Government so that they can stagger along on Liberal crutches until they come to the right time for an election. I can assure the hon. Member for Inverness that at that point all the Liberal ideas about moderation will be thrown out of the window.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has spoken in support of democracy. Does not he consider the proposals for extending the franchise of the Labour Party leadership stakes, so to speak, an extension of democracy?

Mr. Taylor: They could well be in certain circumstances. But I believe a lot of my hon. Friends, and a lot of other people regard them as just a series of moves by the extreme left of the Labour Party to take over the party. Whether this is a democratic move or not, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has a long enough experience of


the Labour Party to be aware that in the Labour Party is a group of people who want to make sure that after the next election, whatever the result, the Labour Party that emerges will be quite different from the Labour Party that we now have in the House of Commons.
We have members of the Labour Party, like the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who want red-blooded Socialism. All that the Liberals are doing is creating a situation in which there is the conceivable possibility of wild extremists, like those two hon. Members, taking over our country.

Mr. Buchan: Since the Prime Minister also objects to a takeover by the extreme Left, why is the hon. Gentleman trying to halve his salary?

Mr. Taylor: In my view, the Prime Minister has given up the fight. By abandoning collective Cabinet responsibility and by allowing all this to go on, the Prime Minister has either given up the fight or is even less effective than I thought him to be.
I must make it absolutely clear that, unless something unexpected happens in later speeches, we shall be voting for the SNP motion tonight as an indication of our total contempt for the Government and our condemnation of their shameful policies that have brought economic misery. However, that in no way means that we support the economic policies advanced by the nationalists which, we believe, would make a serious situation a great deal worse.
The SNP proposes a separate Scottish currency and tight exchange controls. At its recent conference it added a wealth tax, a higher capital gains tax and a local income tax to that list. As industry and commerce in Scotland and England are closely integrated, the establishment of a totally different economic system in the two countries would damage most of our industries and involve them in considerable expense.
If, as is proposed, a separate Scottish currency would rise in value in comparison with the English pound, it would be difficult if not impossible for labour-intensive industries in Scotland, and for most of our engineering, to compete in the

English market unless there was a dramatic rise in productivity or unless wage levels in Scotland were reduced. That is not just a personal view. The fact is that since the SNP published its financial policies not one major Scottish industrialist or prominent trade union leader has stated that the plans would improve employment and prosperity in Scotland. In fact, many have indicated that in their view the policy would inevitably destroy jobs and prosperity. [Interruption.]
Can the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) name one prominent Scottish industrialist or trade union leader who says that SNP economic policy will help employment in Scotland? I know of none. If the hon. Lady knows the names of such people, I should be glad to know.

Mrs. Bain: Stick around.

Mr. Taylor: It must be obvious to those with even the most basic business knowledge that the introduction of a wealth tax in Scotland, which would not apply south of the border, and the introduction of a higher capital gains tax in Scotland than in England would undoubtedly spark off a flight of capital and, therefore, of jobs from Scotland.
I can imagine a situation in which we have a wealth tax in Scotland, but not in England, and a high level of capital gains in Scotland, but not in England, which would mean that capital and jobs would disappear. There are firms like Yarrow Shipyards. Where are they to achieve orders and work? It is pretty clear that all this will involve a considerable loss of jobs and make the situation, already serious as a result of Socialist policies, even worse.
I asked the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East whether she knew of one industrialist who thought that SNP policy would help the economy. The SNP has been making rather desperate attempts to say that some people in prominent positions in business and industry think that it will help. One example is the Scottish clearing banks. On 7th January this year I received a letter from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford). It was signed not by him but on his behalf by a lady whose name I cannot make out but whose first name was Rosie. In that letter the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire,


in talking about nationalist policies and the clearing banks, said:
The thinking behind their comments accepts that self government will be of benefit to all the people of Scotland. There are only one or two matters of technical detail which still have to be worked out. The SNP looks forward to their continuing help over these matters of technical detail.
Here we have it in writing. Here we have the clearing banks saying that not only will SNP policy help Scotland but that they will work out the details with the SNP.
That rather surprised me. I wrote to the secretary of the clearing banks, a Mr. Sutherland, and he told me that this was utterly untrue. He said that he had had no contact of any sort with the SNP and that there had been no discussion. The words he used were:
The first thing that has to be said is that there has been no liaison of any kind whatever between the clearing banks and any political party on this subject.
I replied to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire and asked him a number of other questions. He had been kind enough to set out some of the SNP policies. I asked what this would mean if some of my hon. Friends went on a holiday to Blackpool. I asked whether they would have to get foreign currency from the bank. I asked a number of serious questions about the effect on jobs, but I never got a reply to my letter.
We also have the life companies. It had been suggested by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire—I understand that his constituency includes the headquarters of that excellent life company, the General Accident Company—that in some way they approved of the SNP's plans and felt that they would make things better. No sooner had this happened than the life companies issued a statement saying that in their view the SNP's plans would damage their business, 90 per cent, of which was done south of the border, and would involve, unfortunately, additional premiums and lower bonuses.
We have a state of affairs in Scotland in which industry and commerce do not think that the SNP's policies would help and, in addition, neither the clearing banks nor the insurance companies think that they would help. Although we Conservatives agree with the SNP in this joint

motion because we both think that Socialism is bad, we have to ask the SNP tonight who are the people who believe that its policies will not make matters worse.
It is generally accepted that members of the SNP tend to be masters of distortion. Of that there is no better proof than this astonishing document, the party's canvassing manual, to which the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West referred. It begins by setting out the principles which should be followed in canvassing. It says that what voters like is, first of all, sincerity and, secondly, people who agree with them. Canvassers should indeed follow both objectives scrupulously. It goes on to explain how this is done. For example, if an SNP canvasser comes across a Liberal household, the canvasser should stress the moderate nature of the SNP. However, if the canvasser then comes to a Labour household, he should point out that many of those in the SNP used to be Labour. Then, if the canvasser comes across a Conservative supporter in a Labour constituency, the voter should be advised that the only way to defeat Socialism is to vote for the SNP. But what about the minorities in Scotland, such as the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West? It says that if a canvasser meets someone in Scotland who says "I like Willie Ross", the answer that he should make is "He is a fine man".
This manual should be compulsory reading for anyone who is tempted by nationalist propaganda. It is the worst example of deviousness and unscrupulousness that I have ever encountered. In comparison with this manual, Dr. Goebbels and Machiavelli would qualify for Sunday school prizes.
Therefore, if the nationalists put forward a motion saying
We disapprove of Government policies because Socialism does not work and has brought disaster to the country",
in order to be consistent the Conservative Party must support that motion. However, in so doing it must be made clear that we Conservatives believe that nationalist policies would make matters worse.
Fortunately, however, we are not choosing between a Labour Government and a nationalist Government. There is


a third choice, which is much better. If we could have a General Election, we should have the opportunity to apply Conservative policies, which would be of great benefit to Scotland and to the country as a whole. A Conservative Scotland would undoubtedly be a more prosperous Scotland, as it has always been. We would restore incentives, which would make a major difference to job creation. A Conservative Scotland would also offer more opportunities. We would cut taxation, as we have always done. A Conservative Government would offer freedom of choice in Scotland in housing, education and in all other fields in order to encourage the individual. A Conservative Scotland undoubtedly would also be a safer Scotland. A Conservative Government in Scotland would strengthen the bonds of union.
In our view, this Government have failed. That is why we shall vote against them tonight. However, we wish to make it clear that we believe that the answer to our problems as a nation does not lie in following SNP policy. It lies in the restoration of Conservative Government and good government which will bring back prosperity and restore the real values of our nation.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: It was James Maxton who was once accused of trying to ride two horses at the one time. He replied "If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in the circus at all." We have had a typical circus speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). It is true that he did not say an awful lot about devolution. General Cathcart having led the Tories in retreat from Perth, I can well understand his reticence.
Among others, he said in his election address that he was for an elected Scottish Assembly. However, he managed to outmanoeuvre people who stuck by that and succeeded in getting them removed from the Opposition Front Bench. I am waiting with interest to discover whether he will support his party's three-line Whip on direct elections. Then we shall see whether he has found yet another devious way round a personal difficulty. He has been consistent for a long time about the Common Market and its effect on Scotland. Will he throw that consistency

away and let us see yet another performance of the kind that we saw today?
I am concerned not about the Lib-Lab pact but about tonight's Fory-SNP pact. The hon. Member for Cathcart can argue as much as he likes, but he will be supporting the SNP and the speech—or non-speech—of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart).

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The motion.

Mr. Ross: He will be supporting a motion put foward by the SNP for purely SNP reasons. If there is a measure of cynicism in the document from which he quoted, there is more than a measure of cynicism in the attitude that he is taking in leading his party that way tonight.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles was not really fair to himself in tying himself to a script. I do not know whether he wrote it. I hope very much that he did not. I know that he can do far better than he did today.
Tonight we face what is virtually a vote of censure. It is an attack on the Prime Minister, although we did not hear from the right hon. Gentleman any attack on the Prime Minister. But I assume that, by attacking the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he is attacking the whole Government, thereby making a comprehensive condemnation. But it fell far short of what I expected.
We have serious problems in Scotland. We have serious problems still in terms of the deprivation of parts of the country. But the same problems exist elsewhere, in places such as London and Liverpool. This is what angers many of my English colleagues. It seems to be of no concern to the SNP to try to find solutions to problems which are common to people throughout the United Kingdom and, indeed, far wider than the United Kingdom.
One development that I abhor as a Scot is that we should have a party which is now gaining a measure of success in Scotland purely on emotions and on turning into ourselves, whereas as a nation we always looked out beyond our own needs and beyond the satisfaction of those needs with purely selfish policies. Deny it as they like, there is more than an element of Anglophobia in SNP members' statements. I heard of them even at Wembley—"If you hate the so-and-so English, clap your hands." There was no pride for


any true Scot in that kind of behaviour. Yet there are certain members of the SNP who encourage it. When young terrorists who have taken some of their speeches seriously end up in the courts, the SNP says "We disown them. We have now expelled them." Who is responsible for that kind of feeling? Is it to the benefit of this country?

Mr. Donald Stewart: Which country?

Mr. Ross: This country—the United Kingdom. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and a proud part. No SNP Member is a better Scot than I am just because he wears a kilt. I do not need to wear a kilt to prove that I am a good Scot.
I regret the cynicism that is contained in the document which has been quoted for use by SNP doorstep canvassers. We heard about the reply that was given when my name was mentioned—namely "Willie Ross is a fine man." I well remember during an election campaign in Dundee hearing a voice over a loud-speaker—it so happened that our candidate was a man from Sheffield, an Englishman—proclaiming time after time, "The Labour candidate is an Englishman." When the broadcaster stopped for breath, I began reciting Robbie Burns
A man's a man for a' that!
When I stopped, the other voice took over with the phrase "Willie Ross is an Englishman." [Interruption.] It may be amusing, but it is a serious matter.
That is the worst feature of this kind of stuff. It seeks to sell a party as one would seek to sell soap powder or a car. No wonder the Glasgow Herald said that as an exercise in political cynicism the manual was breathtaking. The manual suggests that canvassers should find out what the people want first and then say that the SNP will give it to them.
Is the right hon. Member for Western Isles proud of that? Does he agree with is? This document is being put out to all SNP canvassers. Before they go on to the doorsteps they are told to find out as much as they can about the person whom they are canvassing. How are they to do it? The manual says that it should be done by
Personal observation and experience—friends and acquaintances, local newspapers,

local libraries, cafes, public houses and hostelries.
In other words, find out what a man wants and what his needs are, then go to the door and say "Yes, we and we alone will provide it". That kind of approach is disgusting.

Mr. Buchan: And dangerous.

Mr. Ross: Yes, it is dangerous, too. But, sadly, it is successful. The SNP members are selling emotions, and they are selling them with fervour. In political terms they are the equivalent of the political hooligans of today when they adopt such platforms.
We have our problems and we should have used this debate to go into them. I am concerned about unemployment in Scotland, because the level is dangerously high. I believe that we should ask the Government to return through the SDA, or through the grant system by the Secretary of State for Scotland, a considerable share of the money lost to Scotland through loss of the regional employment premium. We should use that wisely together with the proposals announced last Monday by the Secretary of State for Industry. The figures published last month are not properly comparable with those of the previous year because of the change in school leaving age, but those figures are far too high. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will turn his mind to that matter.
In my consituency the rate of unemployment is 8·7 per cent. We now face the possibility of losing a very important firm in the area. The firm is that of Glenfield and Kennedy, and it changed hands in 1966, having been taken over by an American firm, Crane. At one time the firm employed between 3,000 and 4,000. The work force is now down to only a thousand. It provided engineering jobs and other skilled work in Scotland—work which we cannot afford to lose.

Mr. Crawford: I am afraid that I have the unpleasant duty to tell the right hon. Gentleman something he may not already know. I was told a few minutes ago that the thousand workers at Glenfield and Kennedy are to be given their redundancy notices tomorrow. That is a disgraceful indictment of a system that involves taking control of Scottish industry from


Scotland and sending it to London, America, or anywhere else. I am sorry to tell the right hon. Gentleman that this now looks to be a fact.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is not telling me very much that I do not already know. I have been working on this matter with trade unions, Ministers and officials, and I know that they have spent every minute of their time trying to solve this problem. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that those who have put the firm into receivership are the parent company, namely, the American concern. They and they alone are responsible for that.

Mr. Crawford: It gives us no pleasure that this has happened.

Mr. Ross: I hope that it gives the hon. Gentleman no pleasure. I certainly hope that we do not land in the same situation again. The Government have been trying to mount a rescue operation. I appreciate that they have many obligations and are responsible in these matters to this House.
The hon. Gentleman and the SNP voted against us when we sought to give money to industry in this House. They were concerned in a motion to reduce the salary of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. That related to British Leyland and Chrysler. The SNP voted with the Tories. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) should know that. He has got to live with what he has done. The same thing applies to the Scottish Development Agency. Although the SNP attempted to emasculate that agency, it will now probably want us to use that body with new powers.

Mr. Crawford: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? I am being attacked.

Mr. Ross: No. The hon. Gentleman took far too long last time. It was the hon. Gentleman and members of the Standing Committee opposite who voted with the Tories to emasculate those provisions.
It surprised me that the hon. Member for Cathcart did not take the opportunity in his remarks to tear apart the illusory SNP policy. There was not a single item of policy contained in the speech of the right hon. Member for Western Isles,

whether it be related to Kilmarnock or anywhere else. [Interruption.] SNP Members laugh, but perhaps they can tell me one idea that was advanced by that right hon. Gentleman. I took down practically all the points in his speech and I found not one positive or constructive suggestion.
It is easy to understand why we had no policy from the right hon. Gentleman. The reason is that SNP Members have no political philosophy because they cannot agree among themselves. We all remember the statement made by Margo MacDonald—that the SNP was a Socialist party. Then, apparently, the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) said: "No it is not. It is a Social Democratic party." Again, the reply of the SNP's chairman, Mr. William Wolfe, was "No comment".
We can see the SNP's cynicism contained in the manual. I repeat that the SNP has no political philosophy.

Mr. Crawford: Put on a new record.

Mr. Ross: It is not a new record; it is a good old one. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was absent when his record on Chrysler was commented upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). But in the municipal elections the SNP claimed that it had saved Chrysler. I certainly do not remember any SNP member standing by my side or sending messages of support to Labour when we battled successfully on that issue.

Mr. Crawford: We voted for it.

Mr. Ross: The SNP view from the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) was that the money would be better spent on planting trees.

Mr. Crawford: No.

Mr. Ross: The SNP also voted against us on the nationalised industries. There was a great danger of the Scottish and Welsh nationalists making this debate a laughing stock. That would do Scotland no good.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend took up the point of the teacher training colleges. So far I have not received any reply from the SNP Bench as to what we should do about the falling birth rate. I do not blame the bachelors or the young married men without families, but the fact


is that there has been a dramatic fall in the number of children being born, and this will inevitably affect the schools. There was no constructive suggestion from the Scottish nationalists, only the assertion that the Government were wrong.
This applies to the hon. Member for Cathcart. It is no good his saying that he will keep all the colleges open. He is the man who proclaims the need for economy. He is a hatchet man on some things. Hon. Members opposite have not faced up to the problem. They have not been fair to the people of Scotland. I hope that they are not suggesting that we should train more and more teachers for the unemployment queues. The hon. Members cannot have it every way—he cannot argue that we should cut the amount of money going to local authorities and then expect local authorities to spend more money on training teachers when he knows that we already have a superfluity of them. I hope that my right hon. Friend will go forward with his proposals for dealing with deprivation so that in areas where teachers are required they will be forthcoming and that the money will be provided for that. He said that he is discussing this question.
So far today I have not heard any justification for a reduction in the salary of the Prime Minister.
My right hon. Friend avoided mentioning the matter of the pie and beans promise at the municipal elections, when this great patriotic and royalist SNP, as it proclaims itself to be, announced that a certain gentleman was to become Lord Provost of Glasgow when the SNP had won all the seats there. The threat was that he would change the Royal Jubilee lunch menu and that it would be pie and beans. The hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) has an awful lot to live with.
We had a wonderful exhibition from the SNP Bench two months ago on the subject of the Shetlands when we were discussing the devolution Bill. I shall never forget it. The hon. Lady proclaimed that the Shetlands had the right to independence and that if that meant getting all their oil wells, they could have them. The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire said "No", that he doubted very much

whether under international law the Shetlands were entitled to them.
Somebody must have given some information to the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick), because I can remember that he came crashing into the House and disagreed with the hon. Lady and with the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire. The hon. Member for Argyll said that the only islands that had a right to independence were the Western Isles and that the people of Shetlands had a language that—I will not describe what the hon. Member said about the language, but it was a language that none of them could speak.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us his policy?

Mr. Ross: Our policy is the policy of the United Kingdom. It is the Shetlands policy, too, that we should use the benefits of the oil for all the people of this country. That is our way.
I hope that everybody appreciates the absence of policy and the conflicts of policy on the part of the SNP. Taking that together with the advice to its canvassers, one begins to understand exactly the difficulty the party is in.
There is one awkward question on the document. If the person at the door says
The SNP is too inexperienced
the reply is to be this:
The party has been on the go since 1930.
That is the right phrase "on the go ".
 We now have experts in all fields, advising our MPs quietly on policies.
The experts had better stop advising them quietly and start shouting because it has not got across to the MPs yet.
I end with this quotation from the document:
Everyone has commented on the high standard of our MPs.
That is a lie, because I have not. After the speech we heard today from the right hon. Member for Western Isles, I shall not make the comment.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Iain MacCormick: It is remarkable that during the speeches of the last three speakers, one theme has continually arisen. It is the theme that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is a fine man. This remark I can attribute to three hon. Members. One is


the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), one is the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), and it will come as no surprise to many hon. Members to hear that the third was the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock himself. I shall not join in the plaudits which have been bandied about the House, because I felt that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was guilty today of using a turn-around in his speech. He lampooned the Scottish National Party, as various other Members of his party have done today, as being a party infused pretty well only with emotion and, indeed, with emotion mixed with a good deal of duplicity as well.
I think that the case of the Scottish National Party today, not just in the House but throughout Scotland, is that the boot is on the other foot. The Scottish National Party has become in the eyes of hundreds of thousands of Scots the only party that can set forth a proper case for the future of Scotland and that can set it forth without descending into the realms of mad, passionate emotionalism such as we see more and more from the Labour and Conservative Benches. I should have thought that the whole tenor of this debate is that this is not the SNP faced with a really constructive opposition.
This is the SNP—indeed, the people of Scotland—faced with the threshing, dying agonies of some former monster which, in the case of the Conservative Party, has already become a very small one and which, in the case of the Labour Party, at the next election in Scotland will be shown to be a very small one.
Before I stood up to make this speech I took the trouble to read over what I have said on the subject of devolution in the House over the past three years or so. I found that in March 1974, when I made my maiden speech, not only myself but all the members of the SNP Bench were prepared to approach the whole idea of devolution with some respect and co-operation, because we genuinely believed, in our stupidity at the time, that the Government meant what they said about giving Scotland, and Wales their own elected legislative assemblies. We said that, not only in those balmy days before the Scotland and Wales Bill eventually made its appearance; we went on saying it, and

we went on proving it in the way in which we voted in the House. The last time that I spoke on the subject of devolution was when we were debating the Scotland and Wales Bill, and we were still able to say that because at that time the Bill might still have become law, a position which I regret is no longer the case.
That is not something that I regret simply as a matter of nature. It is something that I regret because it proves to me that not only the Conservatives have gone back on what they said they would do, but so has the Labour Party. They did not approach that Bill as people who really believed in what they were doing. They approached it only as people who felt they were forced, as an electoral bribe to the population, to introduce it.
It ill behoves anybody who is a member of such a party, and it ill behoves even the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, after the most schoolmasterly oration that he has just delivered, to speak about any duplicity in a political party when they have all been tarred with this in a real sense—in a sense in which the Scottish National Party certainly has not.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): The hon. Gentleman is the first Scottish National Party Member to speak since reference was made to the canvassing manual. Will he confirm that this manual was issued by the SNP and tell us what he thinks about it?

Mr. MaeCormick: I have not seen the said document. I am prepared to accept that it was issued by the SNP, but not having seen it I cannot comment, except on the particular paragraph referred to by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. I do not agree with that paragraph.
As I said, the SNP was prepared to co-operate on the Scotland and Wales Bill. We were always honest about it and made it quite clear that we were co-operating not because we saw the Bill as an end in itself but because we saw it as part and parcel of the dynamic process of greater measures of self-government and, eventually, independence. It is quite amazing that any reasonably educated hon. Member could pretend to be surprised that that was our aim. The


aim of our party has always been independence for Scotland. I have been a party member since the 1950s, and every single one of my membership cards states the aim in black and white. If any hon. Member wants confirmation of this he should buy one and become a member, or borrow one from a friend, and he will see that this is so.
I turn now to the remarks of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West. The former Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), said that this debate was a joke thing, and I was reminded of this remark during the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West. The last time I heard the hon. Member speak was on the radio, when he talked about folk music. I thought his speech was quite funny, but it would have been even funnier had it been set to music, and had he been allowed by the rules of the House to sing it.
One of the most unfortunate parts of his remarks and of those of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was their harping on about this idea of Anglophobia. They trotted out as an example the claim that the SNP set up a loud-speaker and said nasty things about an Englishman who was standing for the Labour Party in Scotland. I would not put it past either of them to say nasty things about the various Englishmen who stand for the SNP in Scotland. I am sad to be accused of Anglophobia. I am married to an Englishwoman, and I suppose that my children are half English. Anglophobia is not a thing that characterises the SNP. I and all my colleagues would dissociate ourselves entirely from any idea that this is so.

Mr. Buchan: If that is the case, why in January, February and March, when there was a sustained campaign of Anglophobia and racialism conducted in letter after letter in The Scotsman, did the hon. Member and other members of his party not take issue with it instead of leaving that to people like me?

Mr. MacCormick: This is descending to the level of farce. There is no such campaign in Scotland and there never has been a sustained campaign of racialist Anglophobia. I do not recognise that

there ever was such a thing, so how can I refute it?

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member's brother recognised it.

Mr. MacCormick: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West said—and the mind boggles—that if we had independence in Scotland it would put us in a neo-colonialist position. If he is prepared to extend that argument, it would apply to any small country that was independent. It would even apply to the United Kingdom within the Common Market. The Scottish National Party is quite certain, speaking not from an emotional point of view but from common sense, that once we have independence we shall end that sort of thing. Once we get a chance, Scotland will have a strong economy, and the people of Scotland will be allowed to realise their true potential.
Those people who say that a strong Scottish pound is a bad thing should go to West Germany and tell the people there that a strong economy and deutschemark is something to dread and will weaken their position. I would certainly not agree with that.
I refer now to the remarks of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) who is my parliamentary neighbour. When he speaks of pacts and compromises he should think of the rather sordid pact that the Liberal Party has with the Labour Party. He should not confuse genuine compromise from an independent position with the kind of compromise that means selling one's side down the river. I have a feeling that that is exactly what the Liberal Party has done.
Ever since I came into the House there has been an ongoing debate on devolution. Once it was conducted on a fairly high level and I thoroughly enjoyed it. This debate today has not been enjoyable at all. It has been characterised by cheap jibes, corny jokes and rotten complacency on both Front Benches. I do not suppose that I can say that the Conservative Front Bench was complacent because it scarcely mentioned the whole question of devolution—for obvious reasons.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Since the hon. Member has now moved to the Conservative Party I should like to take him up on his earlier point. He said that the


agreement that the Liberal Party had reached with the Government was sordid. Could he please justify the use of that very harsh word? I do not dispute his right to argue the case for an independent Scotland. I do not agree with it, but I still do not dispute his right to argue it, I do not regard our pact as being sordid. Will the hon. Member recognise that I and my colleagues in our negotiations with the Government on devolution have been seeking to get something a little nearer our federal position than was previously offered?

Mr. MacCormick: I cannot see the agreement as anything other than an attempt to save both parties' skins. It is an attempt to buy a few more months, and I cannot find anything good to say about it. The Liberal Party had the chance to support the timetable motion. Had it done so I believe that we would have been a lot closer to devolution than we are today. Any other argument is fatuous.
The complacency of the Government Front Bench is striking. When I think of the tragic mess of the transport system in the part of the country that I represent, the tragic mess of the unemployment figures, and the tragic mess of education in Scotland, and I see the complacency written all over Ministers' faces, I am reminded of a primitive man trying to hammer a screw into a plank of wood. I see a grin on the face of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, but he reminds me of a primitive man trying to pull the screw out with a pair of pliers.
I wish that more Scots people were here today to witness this debate. I am sure that if they were here to witness the way in which the SNP has been unjustifiably attacked they would vote for us in greater numbers—as I am sure thye will do anyway. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Inverness in that I believe that there will be a majority of SNP seats in Scotland after the next election.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I agree with the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) in that I, too, wish that many more people from Scotland and Wales were listening to the debate, either directly or by means of television, so that they might witness the farce of

this Scottish National Party motion and see how its Members will emerge from the debate with bloody noses and several black eyes.
It is difficult to reconcile his call for reason with the impassioned speech made by the hon. Member for Argyll, and his call for honesty with the sheer cynicism of that electoral manual issued on behalf of his party. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is not in his seat, but the sheer cynicism of the Conservative-nationalist pact which we have seen and shall be seeing in the Division Lobby tonight boggles description.
This might have been a great Parliamentary occasion, for it is effectively a motion of censure on the Government. However, I am confident that the people of both Wales and Scotland will not be impressed by what has been said today. Virtually every hon. Member who has spoken began by saying that he proposed to criticise the non-constructive nature of the speech that preceded his and proceeded to give something of a knock-out speech.
I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister lost no sleep last night fearing the loss of half of his salary. I am sure that he is treating the debate just as it deserves to be treated by the House, by turning up at the end to register his vote and leaving that as his sole contribution.
The real worry of the nationalists is that the Government have not delivered and will not deliver Wales and Scotland to them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that he detected a certain negative anti-English sentiment in much of the propaganda put forward by the nationalists in Scotland. In the same way, my Welsh colleagues and I see a similar negative provincialism and a retreat into their own shell or valley based on anti-English feelings arising from so much nationalist propaganda in Wales.
There is a simplistic approach to politics as a whole on the part of many Welsh nationalists. Not for them the problem of the allocation of scarce national resources, not for them the matter of priorities within a limited budget, and not for them the matter of IMF restraints or demographic problems regarding the future of our colleges of


education. They can choose to ignore the world context and the problems of peripheral areas, not just in this country, but over the whole of the European Continent and elsewhere.
In their brave new world of unlimited resources they can mutter the panacea of independence, or the formula parroted by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) of "Commonwealth status", which, apparently, is independence in more palatable dress, in the hope that the real issues and problems of politics will disappear. The SNP is now on record as wanting independence.
The Welsh nationalists do not use the word "independence", but it may be that during the debate they will get closer to it. The nationalists fail to recognise that Welsh people do not want independence. They do not want separation. They do not want to create artificial barriers because they are sure that they will suffer most. At least the Scots have oil.
It is perhaps interesting to note that this great parliamentary occasion, which the nationalists promised us today, now has, during the mid-part of the debate, only one SNP Member and two Plaid Cymru Members present. That is hardly a tribute to the interest which they expressed as having in this debate.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman note that on the Government side there is only one Welsh Member of Parliament and the Secretary of State?

Mr. Anderson: Two Welsh Members of Parliament and the Secretary of State. I have already made the point that the Prime Minister and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends are treating this silly debate in the manner that it deserves.
We in Wales do not have oil. As I understand the policy of the SNP on independence, it is not to share the oil with us in any fraternal way. We are confident that the building of new frontiers will not help the people in Walees any more than frontiers would help the structural problems of those in the North-East of England or on Merseyside where there are similar problems. We believe that it is a callous view on the part of the nationalists to imagine that an unem-

ployed man on Merseyside or in the North-East of England is essentially different from his counterpart in Wales or Scotland.
We have witnessed the way in which the nationalists can pick and choose their statistics bolstered by the mass of parliamentary Questions which they put down at great expense. Frequently they could get the answers by a little diligent research in the Library. If an answer suits them, it is trumpeted in the media in Wales, helped by their friends in the media.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen used examples from Scandinavia, ignoring the only comparable example in unemployment terms—Ireland, the independent country on our doorstep.
The nationalists refuse to look at the overall British position—for example, the viability of mines in South Wales compared with productivity in Yorkshire. They always look at the problems arising from the union and fail to see the benefits. For example, they talk about charging for our water across the frontiers, but forget the benefit that we have received and are receiving from the immense oil and gas riches which lie in the North Sea.
There are difficulties in abundance in Wales. Unemployment is at an obscenely high level. There are communications problems. There are industrial scars, which have blighted the landscape in Wales for decades. There are long waiting lists for houses. So much housing in Wales is of poor quality. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) could point to areas in the inner city of London—North Kensington, Brixton and other areas—where the quality of housing and multiple deprivation is a far greater problem than it is in any part of Wales. That is something that the nationalists refuse to accept. We have problems in abundance in Wales. There is the tragic problem of youth unemployment and under-utilisation of our national resources. Such problems cannot be solved by the magic wand—the panacea of independence. They can be assisted only by working together as a unit within the United Kingdom.
The nationalists' solutions are irrelevant, yet they gain mammoth publicity in Wales by their instant opposition to anything put forward by the Government.


I take as an example the instant opposition by the hon. Member for Carmarthen to the White Paper on Transport, which was published last week. Almost before the White Paper had been published the hon. Gentleman went rushing off to the Press with an instant letter to the Secretary of State for the Environment, in which he said:
There are no plans anywhere in this White Paper for the substantial investment Wales needs in our railways if we are to maintain, leave alone improve, existing services. London "—
part of the Anglophobia is the way that the Welsh nationalists use the word "London", in a pejorative sense—
neglect of Welsh railways seriously threatens the future of important links such as the Mid-Wales line, the Swansea to Fishguard services, and the Cambrian Coast line".
There is nothing in this instant letter, probably penned before the hon. Member for Carmarthen had a chance to read the White Paper, about the new emphasis in it on the needs of transport in rural areas, which will be particularly relevant to Wales. Indeed, there is nothing about the new powers given to the counties for co-ordinating transport needs. Nor have we heard anything from the nationalists about the measure of devolution and real decentralisation of power which I thought they wanted. They said nothing about the fact that under this Government there has been no loss of rail track mileage in Wales, and the spirit of the White Paper makes such a loss appear far less likely.
On anyone's estimate there has been a substantial change of spirit from the consultation document on transport last April and last week's White Paper. That change has not been reflected in any way by the instant opposition which was immediately broadcast throughout the media in Wales by the hon. Member for Carmarthen.
A similar thing happened with housing. In the housing White Paper there is a new spirit of devolution which our people will recognise. It involves decentralisation to county units with which people can identify.
Throughout the attitude of the nationalists there is a spirit of doom and gloom. They appear to live in an unreal world, which I and my Labour colleagues do not recognise in Wales.
When I leave London to travel to Wales I normally go by high-speed train. The London to South Wales line was the first line in the United Kingdom on which the high-speed train was established. It has made an enormous improvement in communications. I also see the M4, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has preserved against all the odds in the climate of public expenditure cuts. When I travel to my constituency I pass Llanwern, which has benefited from vast new steel investment. I also pass Port Talbot which has just had an enormous vote of confidence in its future by the Government's announcement of £835 million of steel investment. On my way to Swansea I go through the Swansea Valley and see how that valley is being transformed by the new Government grants, which are now channelled through the Welsh Development Agency.
This is the picture which I and the people of Wales see. They see the transformation under this Government. They read so frequently in the Press about the instant opposition in housing, education and transport, and they see the contrast between the nationalist gloom and doom merchants and the real achievements brought about by the Government. Those achievements receive scant coverage in the Welsh Press because of the way they are reflected by the media and the way in which they are so often tainted and distorted by the nationalists. This positive picture hardly comes through.
The Government, in the hurricane season, at a time of escalating world oil prices and massive unemployment throughout the Community, have contained the position and in some ways improved it. They have made a massive attack on the awful unemployment figures, but last week's announcement received little support from the nationalists. We cannot win. When my right hon. and learned Friend announces a new programme of advance factories to prepare for the upturn the nationalists divert attention to the factories that arc unlet. My right hon. and learned friend cannot win with the nationalists. He would still be criticised if he did not produce the factories.
In spite of the enormous problems in Welsh housing, can the nationalists deny that we are housed better than we have


ever been? Can they deny that in terms of new building programmes and slum clearance there has been a vast transformation of Welsh housing and a massive investment in our industrial future? There is also the saving of Shotton. If the Government had not a few months ago produced their policy on steel, the closure of Shotton would have begun this year. That is something for which we had no praise from the nationalist gloom and doom merchants. The M4 shows the real and proper priority. It links us with our markets in the South-East and Birmingham, and is far more important than the wholly irrelevant North-South link, unifying the nation, which the nationalists would have us undertake.
With all these problems I believe there is a new mood of confidence in Wales. It stands in sharp contrast to the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen, which ranged from the Basques to the Catalans and hardly mentioned the salary of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which is said to be the subject of debate. That confidence is certainly frightening the nationalist parties, and this motion is for them a motion born of frustration. They see the Government's policies coming to fruition and they ally themselves with the Conservative Party, a party which a few months ago, by its opposition to the Water Charges Equalisation Bill, prevented Welsh ratepayers from gaining £4 million or so this year. They are unusual comrades in arms, and they are making a new pact, a Conservative-nationalist pact. It is an odd combination, which will not be lost on the electorate in Wales.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I should tell the House that 10 hon. Members would like to catch my eye before the winding-up speeches begin at 9 o'clock. If they are all to be satisfied that will mean about 12 minutes each.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The debate was referred to earlier as a joke debate or a light-hearted debate. That was the tone of the opening speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of certain other Labour contributions. For us, however, the whole point of making this wide-ranging criticism is our concern

over the Government's failure to deliver the goods on all aspects of its economic and social programme.
We selected the specific criticism of the Prime Minister because he and his immediate predecessor must bear most of the responsibility for the economic and social failures of the Government's policies. Of course, some responsibility must also devolve itself to the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland. As Cabinet Ministers they carry a joint responsibility for the failure of the Government's policies in Scotland and Wales.
The Government's programme must be measured not against what was achieved by the Conservatives when they were in Government but against the real needs of Scotland and Wales. Similarly, the policy initiatives taken by the Government recently must be measured not against what might have been produced by a Conservative Government but against the background of what has happened to transportation in Wales under successive Governments since the war.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) specifically criticised references by my hon. Friends to the transport review White Paper. We attacked that White Paper because yet again it creates a false transfer of power. It will nominally give county councillors responsibility for maintaining future rail services, but will it give them the resources to maintain them? Will the transport supplementary grant contain an element for maintaining the Cambrian coast line when it goes to Gwynedd County Council, Powys County Council and Shropshire County Council? Can we expect the full support of Shropshire County Council to maintain the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth railway? I hope that we can. What will it mean in terms of resources to have a transfer of responsibility which will not be matched by a transfer of resources through the transport supplementary grant?
Another worrying aspect of the transport White Paper is that the system whereby passenger railway closures have been advertised and made the subject of inquiries through the Transport Users' Consultative Committee seems to be under threat. This is not specified in the White Paper, but we are told that Government and parliamentary scrutiny of


procedures on rail closures is to be repealed. What precisely does that mean? Does it mean the end of the system which was responsible for maintaining the Cambrian coast line? It was the public inquiry at Harlech, the excellent advocacy of the Secretary of State on behalf of the liaison committee and the activities of the action group of local people that maintained that railway. It is precisely public answerability through the system of inquiry that has enabled local groups to protect transport services. I object forcefully to a White Paper that will result in that basic democratic right being withdrawn. This was brought up by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).

Mr. Anderson: Although there are points of concern, the tone of the White Paper is substantially better than that of the consultative document because it gives new impetus to rural transport—buses and trains—and that is of considerable importance in Wales. However, we have heard nothing of this from the nationalists.

Mr. Thomas: The White Paper ought to be better—because the consultative document was cirticised by us all. We put in a major and lengthy criticism. To that extent we accept the White Paper, but we must, in a constructive way, criticise policies from the point of view of the needs of the Welsh economy and community. We reserve the right to continue our criticism, strident though it may seem to the Secretary of State and other Labour Members. We are here to represent the critical interests of the people of Wales, and we shall continue to advocate our cause in that context.
Speaking specifically—not about transport or those aspects of economic policy that have already been covered by previous speakers—I want to take a more wide-ranging view of the position of the Welsh economy and not just in the last three years under the present Government. I want to go further back and to look at the economic plight of Wales and the initiatives of Government in the context of the regional needs of Wales.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East mentioned that there had been an increase in the number of jobs provided in Wales through the advance factory programme. Indeed, 70,000 jobs were created through

the initiative of regional policies in Wales in the 10-year period up to 1975. However, in the same period 110,000 jobs were lost, and we must balance what was created through regional policy with what was lost. There was a 10 per cent. drop in male employment in Wales between 1965 and 1975. There was a general downward trend in the United Kingdom, but it was more severe in Wales. Between 1973 and 1974 the number of male employees in Wales fell by 2·3 per cent. compared with only 0·9 per cent, in the whole United Kingdom. Similarly, there has been a trend throughout Britain for an increase in female employment, but the rate of increase in Wales has been lower than in the United Kingdom.
In the Welsh economy there is a lower rate of economic activity. That has been so under successive Governments. A smaller proportion of the Welsh population is at work than there is among the whole population of Britain, and the proportion is smaller than in nearly any other English region. The male economic activity rate in Wales, according to the 1971 census, was 78 per cent., while the figure for the whole of Britain was more than 81 per cent. There was also a lower activity rate for females, and there has been consequent job loss, with the result that we have a 36 per cent. female activity rate in Wales compared with 43 per cent. throughout Britain. The Secretary of State is checking my figures. They come from Welsh Economic Trends No. 3, Table 8.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I was not checking the hon. Gentleman's figures but commenting that that part of his speech was a repetition of the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Thomas: It was a development of that speech, and there will be further developments, if the Secretary of State will bear with me, of the analysis that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans).
We see, therefore, that there is a sharper decline in the male activity rate in Wales and an increasing female activity rate which is far lower than the increase for the whole of Britain. Not even the most populous Welsh county has a female activity rate anywhere near that of England.
What does this mean? It means that the heartbeat of the economy is slower. We have a lower level of growth and income. The comparison that we wish to make tonight is not between what has been achieved by the Government and what might have been achieved under any other Administration, but between what has been achieved and what Wales needs. It is on those criteria that the Government must be judged. Low economic activity means that older people—and we have many, particularly in the valleys and industrial areas—find it difficult to obtain work, as do the young school-leavers. It is virtually impossible for many disabled people in Wales to find work. That is what happens when there is lower economic activity and higher structural unemployment.
Of course, our lower economic activity results in lower incomes. An analysis of the position in Wales shows that the gross domestic product per employee is high. So the low level in income cannot result from the level of productivity of our workers. It results from the number of people at work. The level of the gross domestic product per head in Wales is £300 below the figure for England and £150 below the figure for Scotland. The Welsh figure is 5 per cent. below the average in the assisted regions and almost 25 per cent. below the average in the unassisted regions throughout Britain. These continuing low-income problems are a result of the lower rate of economic activity and the high rate of unemployment.
The unemployment rate does not fall below 2 per cent. in good periods and it has only occasionally dropped below 4 per cent. in the last 10 years. The Welsh unemployment figures are worse than those in the English regions, with the exception of the North-East. Our argument is that the position in Wales, with structural unemployment and low economic activity, indicates that we need far more effective intervention to tackle our economic problems.
After repeated demands from my party, the Government have created the Welsh Development Agency. That agency has the power to invest and create wholly-owned subsidiaries. It has not used that power. It has failed to use the power given to it by this House and, as far as

I am aware—the Secretary of State can perhaps answer this later—neither he nor his hon. Friends have advised the agency or guided the agency, telling it, as they can do, that it should use this power.
When 20 people enter an empty advance factory in my constituency, as happened a fortnight ago, and take over that factory as a gesture, it is an act of desperation by a community which has turned to successive Governments and failed to find an initiative to create employment in areas of high unemployment. I make no apology for referring again to the 50,000 sq. ft. advance factory in Blaenau Ffestiniog. I did so in my first speech in this House and have done so in most of my other speeches on economic policy. That factory is a monument to the failure of regional policy under successive Governments. I press the Secretary of State to say that he is prepared to tell the WDA that it ought to use its powers to set up wholly-owned subsidiaries in such situations.
I know that the Secretary of State will reply that such a matter is up to the commercial judgment of the WDA Those of us who have spoken to the agency know that, regrettably, it is more interested in operating as a public sector merchant bank than in taking direct initiatives. We have seen examples of the way in which the Northern Ireland development Agency has taken such initiatives. In my view the WDA should be directed to use some of its budget for research and project design to ensure that employment is created in areas of high unemployment.

Mr. John Morris: To get the record straight, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will concede that in the period in which it has been in operation the Welsh Development Agency has already taken shares in some companies and given loans to half a dozen or more of them. If my recollection is correct, one of the firms it sought to help in its early days in this way was in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Regrettably, the circumstances were such that it was not right for it to do so. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should get away with castigating the WDA in this way.

Mr. Thomas: I am castigating the WDA specifically for its failure to use


its powers to set up wholly-owned subsidiaries. This ought to be part of its strategy. I believe in flexible public enterprise and so, apparently, does the Prime Minister—or so he told the right hon. and learned Gentleman in Aberyst-wyth on Saturday. If the Prime Minister believes in flexible public enterprise, let us see it in action. When we have unemployment of over 10 per cent. as we have in Gwynedd, and when there is a 50,000 sq. ft. building which has been empty for four years, the policy of flexible public enterprise should include setting up wholly-owned subsidiaries. I shall continue to castigate the WDA until it does this.

Mr. John Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows that the terms of the Act do not prohibit such ventures. It is, as he said, a matter for the judgment of the WDA. In the right circumstances I should give the agency every encouragement. It is for it to decide on the ventures it will seek to support. In the short time that it has been in existence it has been collecting together the appropriate staff to ensure that the right commercial decisions are taken. Already a number of decisions have been taken, affecting firms from Prestatyn to Rhyl and down to Newport. I believe that the very first firm it sought to help was in Dolgellau. Is that right?

Mr. Thomas: That is right. The Secretary of State knows that I was involved in discussions with his hon. Friend on this issue. I welcome the partial intervention of the agency in crisis situations and the use of expansion capital for specific firms. I also say that where participation with the private sector does not appear to be successful or possible the agency should take action. I am glad that the Secretary of State has said that he will support such an initiative.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State has said that he would welcome such initiatives where the circumstances were appropriate. How far does my hon. Friend feel that unemployment in Wales should rise before circumstances are appropriate?

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend has made a good point. What we have to accept is that the WDA needs to be advised more strongly by the Wdsh Office. In my time I have been critical of the

intervention of Welsh Office bureaucracy in certain administrative matters. But in this aspect of industrial policy the guidelines drawn for the agency, or at least the form of advice which the Secretary of State is able to give it. should be more forceful.
The relative failure of regional policy has caused and causes deep individual distress and social and community decline in large areas of Wales. The heady talk in "Wales: the Way Ahead" about the swelling resources of the United Kingdom being made available to Wales are dead words. Indeed, the whole concept of "Wales: the Way Ahead" is dead.
There was a time when the Secretary of State's predecessors went about Wales extolling the virtues of their national plan. It may be that the job shortfall calculation in the plan was rather short of the mark—about 15,000, if I remember correctly—when compared with the actual shortfall of 220,000. Despite the fact that the figures may have been inaccurate, the intention of national planning for Wales was enshrined in Welsh Office policy. Now, apparently, my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) is told in successive parliamentary answers that no plan can be forthcoming and no planning is to be expected. Apparently national economic planning in Wales is not to be, although we have regional and strategic planning in England as part of Government strategy. Counties in Wales in structure planning are to work within the context of "Wales: the Way Ahead". Perhaps the Secretary of State can give us his latest view on national planning in the Welsh economy and say whether he now believes that there ought to be an attempt to develop beyond "Wales: the Way Ahead".
I have mentioned the job shortfall calculation. The Plaid Cymru economic plan—my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon was one of its authors—had its calculations justified in a later study sponsored by the Welsh Office. It was then found by Moore and Rhodes that the shortfall calculation that we had of between 200,000 and 250,000 new jobs to provide a full solution to deal with the structural and economic problems I have talked about was correct.
This is our basic criticism of Government policy. There has been a failure


to set a target to tackle economic deprivation in Wales. We find that the position is the same in specific areas. If we look at Mid-Glamorgan and the document produced by the Mid-Glamorgan County Council dealing with "Position and Prospects", we find that a study of the industrial position showed that in the early 1960s there was 8 million sq. ft. of floor space provided in the advance factory programme in Britain as a whole. Of that 20 per cent. went to Wales, with 30 per cent. of that figure going to Mid-Glamorgan, representing 25 factories. Between 1965 and 1975, there were 2,500 jobs provided in advance factories in Mid-Glamorgan, so the document tells us. During the same time, 15,000 jobs in the coal industry disappeared. What has happened with the advance factory programme in Mid-Glamorgan has happened throughout the old industrial areas of Wales.
The position in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones)—is very similar to the position in Blaenau Festiniog, in my area, where there has been a failure to replace jobs lost in the extractive sector by new jobs in manufacturing industry. When the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends announce to the Welsh Grand Committee, as the Secretary of State always does, the number of feet of floor space in advance factories that he and his civil servants have created over the last year, he should also remind that Committee, and Wales, of the actual number of jobs created by the advance factory programme so far and should compare that with the number of jobs that are needed.
It is because of this relative failure of the economic programme of the present Government that we criticise the Prime Minister. Indeed, we would criticise any Prime Minister of an Administration in London who failed to create the conditions of recovery and development in the Welsh economy. We have been equally critical of successive Governments that have failed to deliver the economic goods. Should the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) ever arrive at the Welsh Office, we shall certainly be even more critical of him than we are of even the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Administration. As a party, we have been

advocates of effective economic planning in Wales. Our view is increasingly being justified.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Now that the hon. Gentleman has joined in this indiscriminate criticism, I hope that he will allow me to put a question to him. He has been talking for a very long time and very realistically about the many problems of Wales and he has been drawing attention to the fact that they are widespread and are found in parts of England as well. He has said that there is high unemployment in practically every county in Wales. He has criticised the Government's economic policies, and he said that he would criticise Conservative policies. However, he has not explained to the House how he would provide the jobs, except, apparently, by setting up State-owned bodies under the auspices of the Welsh Development Agency. But if the situation is as bad as he says it is, and if unemployment is as widespread, if the problem is so great and so many jobs have to be found, does he think that the resources in terms of money and manpower would be available to solve the problem in that way? What is the economic solution preferred by Plaid Cymru?

Mr. Thomas: The economic solution preferred by Plaid Cymru is the creation of an effective Welsh Government with full economic planning and law-making powers.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: What would they do?

Mr. Thomas: The creation of such a Government would enable us to undertake programmes of development and to take the kind of imaginative decisions taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State when he decided to fund the M4, for example. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen has been demanding for years, since he first became a Member of this House, dualling of the strategic routes and an increase in the number of dual carriageways, and effective 24-feet distance visibility for the rest of the trunk road network.
Let me make clear once and for all that we have always advocated a figure eight in the Welsh road network. If the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans)


reads our economic plan, he will see that there we advocate dualling out north and south and a far improved dual carriageway to Merthyr, and getting 24-feet distance visibility from there north. We are not advocating a major motorway network at present, but—

Mr. Ioan Evans: All the economic activity of Wales is bound up with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is why the Secretary of State is right to give priority to east-west roads rather than to the theoretical conception put forward by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) of having roads running north-south. The economic activity is east-west, and Wales with the rest of Britain.

Mr. Thomas: I am slightly concerned in the context of expenditure on roads, that we are now to see a major extension of the A55, which will result in the linking up of two special development areas. I would want to see the Welsh Office consider devoting at least some resources to improving our through links in Wales to the markets in the Midlands of England and to Europe and beyond. We in Plaid Cymru have always argued for the improvement of our roads to the markets and for the improvement to good distance visibility standards of the A470.

Mr. Michael Roberts: The hon. Gentleman refers to the desirability of more roads in Wales. Few will dispute that proposition. Of course, we must work out where the money is coming from. The important thing is priorities. The hon. Member referred to the imaginative decision to extend the M4 as a major priority, but his hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) has always advocated not the extension of the M4 but a north-south road. Where does Plaid Cymru stand on this matter?

Mr. Thomas: I have always referred to that point and stated clearly that our position is that there must be an improvement in roads east-west and north-south, but that the level of improvement should reflect the need. What we have argued for is a dualling east-west and up to Merthyr and an improvement up to recognised standards on the A470.
Before I am further delayed by interventions which clearly indicate a failure

to read our economic plan, and having been delayed rather longer on the economic aspects than I intended, I turn finally to the social position in Wales which follows directly from the low level of economic activity. It is a fact that in Wales one family in three is living below the official poverty line. That proportion is worse than in any other region or nation in the United Kingdom. If one takes the officially defined poverty line as the supplementary benefit level plus 40 per cent., one finds that there are 330 families per 1,000 in Wales who are living below that level, as compared with 240 in England. We have 240 families living at the level of supplementary benefit plus 20 per cent. No other region in Britain has more than 270 families per 1,000 in the band of income which is below the supplementary benefit plus 40 per cent. level.
That is the vicious indictment of the failure of successive Governments to bring a decent level of income to our people. That is why the level of public expenditure in Wales, particularly on social security, is higher than it is in other parts of Britain.
When the Secretary of State and members of his party so proudly go about Wales saying "Public expenditure in Wales is higher per capita than it is in England" they do not bother to tell us why. One of the major reasons why per capita public expenditure is higher in Wales, apart from capital expenditure on nationalised industries and looking specifically at current expenditure, particularly on social wage items, is that so many families in Wales are dependent on the income maintenance programmes of successive Governments. It is because so many families in Wales are unable to get an adequate level of income from work, and because more of them are unemployed or sick, that we have a higher level of social expenditure in Wales.
The other item of social expenditure which needs "subsidy" from central Government is housing. Public expenditure on housing in Wales is 10 per cent. below the level in England. That is totally unacceptable. It indicates not only a failure in the private sector but a far greater failure in the public sector.
Let us examine the average annual number of dwellings completed per thousand


population from 1969 to 1974. The figure for Scotland was seven dwellings per thousand, for England was 5·9 dwellings per thousand, and for Wales 5·4 per thousand. In the public sector the figures were 2·5 per thousand for England, 5·0 for Scotland, 4·7 for Northern Ireland and 1·9 for Wales. The position will become worse with the rounds of public expenditure cuts which have been announced already. We shall get to the position in which the per capita spending on housing in Wales will be down to £29 in 1979–80 compared with £43 in England. That is totally unacceptable.
Wales is a country where the housing is older and the unfit dwellings number twice as many as those in England. The poor housing record for Wales is equalled only by its economic situation.
The Secretary of State must explain what he is doing in the inter-departmental discussions that he is having with his colleagues about public expenditure for housing. He must explain why he has not secured adequate funds for Welsh housing. I do not mean the odd additional £5 million that he receives when he finds that certain moneys are not being spent. I mean in terms of the programme for the 1980s. Why are the schedules not higher than they are for England? The Welsh need is greater. I do not apologise for asking for a housing subsidy, for Wales because conditions there are a legacy to the performance of successive Governments and their inadequate housing programmes.
To my party this debate has been about the failure of the economic and social record of this Government. We make no apology for seeking to reduce the salary of the Prime Minister. We take the view that no Prime Minister in London deserves his salary, nor will he until we have effective transfer of power from Westmister to Cardiff to enable the Welsh people to tackle their own problems.
Internationally the Labour movement has always been confused about the national question. I do not wish to go into a philosophical argument on that question. In the Labour and trade union movements in many areas of the world a radical, useful and powerful alliance has developed between the forces of social change and the forces of national change.

Wherever we look, whether it is to the Third world or the Basque country, it is a powerful alliance between the forces of the Left and the forces of national recovery that have resulted in change.
We are seeing that alliance being forged in Scotland in the SNP and the Scottish Labour Party and, increasingly, in Wales within Plaid Cymru and within those in the trade union and Labour movements who favour the greater transfer of power. That kind of alliance when it achieves power in Wales will be unstoppable because for too long it has been used as lobby fodder for this Parliament. As we move into the 1980s this political change in Wales will be more dramatic than anything that has been seen in Westminster.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars: We have seen wrangling between Members of the Scottish National Party, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). Until a few moments ago the debate showed how remarkably inept are the SNP at determining political tactics. We have a Government who are wide open to attack and yet, because of the choice of the motion, the attack was not made.
We have a Government who claim to be Socialist. When they came to power, they gave a number of pledges, one of which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during an important television interview: he said that he would never introduce a wages policy. The Government have done that. The Government told us about the social contract, which they said was designed to hold living standards but which has lowered them. When the Government came to power, they said that unemployment was 1 million under the Conservatives and that would never happen again. Now it is 1·4 million.
The former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), said that if Scottish unemployment went up over 100,000, he would feel it necessary to resign. He did not. Yet the SNP allows him to give its members a lecture this evening. We have a Socialist Government who are waiting to be rescued by


capitalists in the United States, West Germany and Japan. They are hoping that our economic problems in the United Kingdom will be solved in time for the Labour Government to be returned to power.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) lectured the two nationalist parties about wanting resources beyond our capability. That is not the problem now. Some industries are running at 20 per cent. below capacity. In the construction industry there are a large number of unemployed, a huge mountain of bricks, plenty of sand and free water. There are plenty of housing schemes and yet the Socialist Administration cannot put them together to use available resources.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock demonstrated his lack of economic knowledge when he referred to Glenfield and Kennedy. What does he expect Glenfield and Kennedy and other firms to be doing? When he was in the Cabinet he agreed to a deflationary policy and cuts in expenditure that were bound to create problems in the engineering industry. The other cuts in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom are the faults of this Administration and its supporters. Remarkably, the attack has been made in the other direction, which no doubt shows the parliamentary skill of right hon. and hon. Members as well as the ineptness of those who promoted the motion
It was not the most apposite motion to table in present political circumstances. It would have been better to narrow the attack to something specific and definite, such as the level of unemployment and the process of de-industrialisation which is taking place in every part of the United Kingdom, apparently unknown to the Government. Even when the country has been flooded with oil and when the City of London has provided more in industrial assistance, the process of de-industrialisation will create a wider and wider gap between the rich and the unemployed. It would be better for an attack to take place on that particular problem.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend, when he considers the ineptitude of the nationalists on this occasion, that they would have done far better to propose that the salary of the Leader of the Opposition be

cut in half, since she is a trenchant opponent of any devolution process?

Mr. Sillars: I regard us as having a Tory Labour Prime Minister and a Tory Tory Leader of the Opposition. But that is really quite immaterial.
I shall now give one or two facts to show how serious is the nature of our unemployment today and how serious is the process of de-industrialisation. I have Hansard here for the debate in July 1973 on the Scottish economy, when the Labour Opposition, as they then were, went full tilt at the Conservative Government, and rightly so, at a time when there were 93,000 unemployed in Scotland. We have now passed beyond that point. Indeed, I argue that we are nearly at the point of no return and that, unless unemployment is soon dramatically reduced, we shall not be able to overcome the problem for at least a decade.
At one time it could be said that Scotland could export its unemployment. It could export it to the more expansionist parts of England, to South Africa, Rhodesia, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States. For one reason or another, those avenues of escape are now cut off, and we have to solve the problem within our own industrial society. If we allow unemployment to go well beyond its present state, there will be no possibility in the foreseeable future of our pursuing the economic policies which would create the rates of growth required to take us below even 100,000. I believe that the situation is as serious as that.
We now have 38,500 people who have exhausted their unemployment benefit, yet there used to be only a total of 45,000 unemployed in the Scottish economy. Scotish unemployment is now almost 80 per cent. higher than it was when Labour took office in February 1974. In May there were nearly 30,000 construction workers unemployed, an increase of 52·2 per cent. over February 1974.
For the 186,000 unemployed in Scotland there are only 19,526 jobs notified as vacant, and for the 1·39 million unemployed in Great Britain there are only 193,826 jobs notified as vacant. That is a very bad state of affairs for unemployment as a whole.
In youth unemployment, however, the situation is far worse and will continue


to be bad despite the programme announced last week by the Secretary of State for Employment. There are now 75,922 young people under the age of 25 unemployed in the Scottish economy. This is the most dynamic and vital section of society—young people between J6 and 25 years of age—we say to them "Work hard at school, stick at your lessons and stimulate your educational ambitions", and then, when they have their qualifications, all that society has to offer 75,000 of them is an idle place in the dole queue.
When we do that, we invite enormous social difficulties. We invite an increase in vandalism, in violence and in antisocial behaviour. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) would probably say that the answer to that is the birch, the stocks, or the gallows. But that has never been, and never will be, the answer. Our problem is not that unemployment excuses the anti-social behaviour but that among some elements of our young people it is bound to be a factor which creates it, and unless we are prepared to get full employment among our young people the rest of society will be in for a pretty difficult time over the next decade, and deservedly so.
The process of de-industrialisation is very worrying, too. In the book "Scotland 1980" there was a contribution from someone who, I believe, is a member of the Labour Party, pointing out that manufacturing now occupies only 30 per cent. of the Scottish economy—the lowest proportion in living memory—and the process is continuing. Last year Strathclyde Region produced a regional survey showing a job loss potential of 70,000 in manufacturing between 1976 and 1983—a constant process of de-industrialisation. Between 8th March 1976 and 31st May this year we have had 106,000 redundancies notified in Scotland. Strathclyde took out of that total almost 51,000, and with what is happening to Glenfield and Kennedy and various other employers, we are on our way to the appalling target which was mentioned by the Strathclyde Regional Council.
Unemployment and de-industrialisation are matters more worthy of a motion that the proposal to reduce the Prime Minister's salary, and would be far more pertinent and effective. However, the

motion we have before us allows us to range over the Government's vices and virtues in economic and social terms, and it allows folk such as myself to pick out one redeeming feature, namely, the Prime Minister's speech to the Parliamentary Labour Party on the question of the Scottish Assembly in which, for the first time, he made a statement committing the Government almost to a vote of confidence issue on the passage of the Bill in the next Session of Parliament.
I regard that as an extremely important statement by the Prime Minister, which in itself warrants the present Government continuing in office until such time as we see whether the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Labour Party really mean it for the second time round. [Laughter.] Yes, I believe, on balance, that the devolution Bill next Session will have a far better chance of passing than many people imagine. At the end of the day, it will be passed not out of idealism or a compulsive need to honour an election pledge but out of the basic motive of political man, the need to survive. If the devolution Bill does not survive next Session, neither will the Government, and I believe that this has been borne in upon a great number of members of the Parliamentary Labour Party since February this year when the guillotine motion failed. That is why I shall vote with the Government tonight, to try to sustain them in office until we see whether, second time round, they actually do it.
It is highly important that there be a Scottish Assembly established. I believe that profound changes are going on in the government of the United Kingdom, and it would be far easier to regulate relations between the people of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom if there were an institution north of the border to do their constitutional speaking for them. For my part therefore, I am prepared, as it were, to stretch the generosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) and myself right through to October or November until we see whether the Government will make it this time.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) suggested that we might have had a better debate had it been devoted to a specific


subject. There is in fact a specific subject, but that subject, the Prime Minister, is not here. It is curious that he is not here. One might say that he is escaping scot-free. I suppose that he may be recovering from the decision of the miners at Tynemouth, or he may have such disrespect for those who are criticising him today that he does not feel that he should attend.
The Prime Minister was certainly in optimistic mood in the bracing air of Aberystwyth over the weekend, and I wish to comment on his speech there. Apparently, he could see a break in the ice surrounding us and
a way out into the open waters of sustained economic growth
as he put it. He did not say who had led us into the ice-pack. Presumably, that is best forgotten.
But I do not think that the British people—including the people of Wales—will forget. The Prime Minister knows that, when the time comes, they will rightly be reminded of the facts of record inflation, disheartening taxation and deep and abiding unemployment. His main ambition now clearly is to avoid the day of reckoning. It is equally clear that he is prepared to go to any lengths to procrastinate having to present himself and his Government for the judgment of the people.
When the time comes, the people will be reminded of the Government's record. They will be reminded of the last month's unemployment figures—8·7 per cent. in Wales compared with 7·3 per cent. in the rest of Great Britain, and 9·3 per cent. in the special development areas. Those figures, like Banquo's ghost, will haunt the Prime Minister and the Government for a long time.
It is curious that in his speech the Prime Minister promised the decade of opportunity ahead not as a consequence of Government policies but as a result of the advent of oil revenues. He took an optimistic view of those revenues at £7 billion. My understanding is that the oil revenues will not produce that kind of benefit until the peak of 1985; but I suppose that anything goes at a party conference in Aberystwyth. Nor did the Prime Minister spell out the uncertainties attached to oil revenues and the dangers, especially in terms of inflation, of a rapid change in our economic prospects.
The matter that I wish to stress is that the Prime Minister's bait to the electorate is blatantly materialistic, and it will be on offer to us whether he is in office or not. The oil revenues will flow whatever party is in office. The right hon. Gentleman was not concerned only to lay bait for the electorate. He was also concerned about perpetuating the support which he receives from the Liberal Party. In this respect I thought that he revealed an astonishing readiness to sacrifice his party's principles—a readiness equalled only by the Liberal Party's willingness to compromise when and since it supported the Government in the vote of confidence some weeks ago.
The political situation has deteriorated since then. The Liberal Party and the Labour Party are less ready to face an election now than they were then and the pressure to continue the Lib-Lab pact is consequently stronger. Hence the 10 points of the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister's crumbs of comfort to the Liberal Party in his weekend speech. They are likely to turn out to be iron rations for survival, as the Liberal Party will discover on Thursday.
Hardly any party was left without some tempting morsel in the Aberystwyth speech. Plaid Cymru must have been attracted by the remarks about decentralising nationalised industries. Even we in the Opposition are pleased by the acknowledgment of a place for Voluntary organisations in the Welfare State system. I imagine that the Left wing might have felt a twinge of delight at the promise of some degree of industrial democracy.
But where does all this party-political bartering get us? Where does it get the people of this country? Where does it get the people of Wales, the 80,000 unemployed to whom I referred, and the 50,000 to 60,000 people on the housing waiting lists?
I well remember the enthusiasm of the Secretary of State for Wales for his Welsh Development Agency when he introduced the Bill. I wonder how he feels about it now. It is said in its latest statement of policy that it is to build 3½ million square feet of factory space in the next five years. Assuming that that plan is completely successful and that all the factories built are filled, it will provide


employment for about 16,000 people when we already have empty factories such as the one referred to by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and no fewer than 80,000 unemployed. It is estimated that over the next 10 years 180,000 jobs will be needed.
What are the Government and the WDA doing about this matter? They are turning to private industry and seeking to encourage it. I agree with that policy, but it seems to be standing some Socialist principles on their head. We understood from the Government that the salvation of this country, the answer to everything, was more and more nationalisation. Suddenly we find that they are putting their faith in the encouragement of private industry.
On 10th March last year the Welsh Grand Committee was told that the Secretary of State for Wales had secured an extra £20 million to £30 million for Welsh housing. We hear that that money has not been spent. The Government try to shift the responsibility for that on to the local authorities. But no one is completely convinced. We acknowledge the great need for housing in Wales. We have a high percentage of unfit housing. How was it that the Government did not discover until the financial year was over that the much vaunted £20 million to £30 million had not been spent? Who is at fault? I suspect that it must be the Government, and yet they have never acknowledged that fault.
What of the future? Devolution is an attempt by the Government to divert criticism to local national assemblies for the failure and inadequancies of central Government. The Government would like debates of this sort to take place in Cardiff and Edinburgh, well away from this Chamber. The people of Wales have recognised that devolution is an attempt to divert criticism from this place.
As for our attitude, we say that over the years Wales certainly has had its fair share of available resources. The provisional expenditure figures per head for 1975–76 are £732 for England, £826 for Wales and £928 for Scotland. I am not saying that we could not do with more. We can always do with more. My criticism of Plaid Cymru is that it wants the earth but will never acknowledge that what it wants must be provided by the United

Kingdom Treasury. Wales does not have the resources to maintain the figure that I have quoted, let alone the expenditure to which the hon. Member for Merioneth alluded. He asks for not only an east-west road in the South, but simultaneously an east-west road in the North and a road down Mid-Wales. His party never tells us from where the money for such developments will come.
I understand that the devolution Bill, or Bills, will occupy our time again next Session. The Government are waiting for the oil to flow in sufficient quantity to enable them to bribe the electorate into giving them another five-year lease of life.
I have one further comment to make on Plaid Cymru's attitude and on the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans). He never seems to be able to accept that anyone can love Wales who is not a member of his party. He makes Welsh-speaking Wales a far smaller Wales than I know it to be. With all his talk about the Basques, the Catalans and so on, he makes Wales very small.
I remind him of that great line of Welsh poetry about
all the air things wear that built this world of Wales.
Even Welsh Wales is a much bigger world than he thinks it to be.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how he and his party intend ensuring a national future for Wales?

Mr. Roberts: Indeed, we have a very sensible policy. It is a developing policy. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read our policy documents, he will see that we cherish all things Welsh quite as much as, if not more than, he does.
What really concerns me about the present position is the way that parties—especially the Labour Party—are abandoning their traditional positions on matters of principle simply to survive. In other words, principle is being sacrificed to expediency, and this cannot augur well for the future of our political life.
How we can have a Labour Party that cannot pursue Socialism and yet is content to remain in office is something that few can understand. It is only explicable in terms of a personal desire for power


that is totally alien to the traditions of this country and the integrity of our party political system. But, of course, the Lib-Lab pact is only a temporary feature. It cannot last for ever—only as long as it suits the Government and until they are in a better position to win an election. How the Liberals can believe that that will be the best time for them as well I frankly do not know.
If the Labour Party were by any chance to win the next election, the Liberal Party would be in no position to restrain the onward march of the Labour Members below the Gangway. The present Prime Minister might not be leading that Government. The Labour Party might then be very differently led and committed to extreme forms of Socialism. Is that what the Liberal Party wants? Typically, the Liberal Benches are empty. Liberal Members contribute to the debate, but they are not here to listen to the speeches of others.
That, I submit, is what the Liberal Party should be considering—what it is really supporting in the long term rather than in the present. I do not think that we can have an even moderately honest and sincere Government in this country in the present circumstances—honest and sincere in the sense that it reflects broadly the wishes of the majority of people in this country. It is because the Prime Minister is at the centre of the present situation and responsible for the political bartering that is going on that I shall vote for a reduction in his salary.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I apologise to the House, and particularly to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Scottish National Party, for my absence in the early stages of the debate. This was due to a long-standing engagement in Northern Ireland combined with some delay in air communications.
The intended effect and object of the motion is to bring this Parliament to an end at the earliest possible moment. If my right hon. and hon. Friends believed that an election in the near future would be in the interest of the Province we represent, we should, of course, be supporting the motion, but we shall not be doing so because we are convinced of the opposite. In the last three months it has at last been recognised by all the parties

in the House—with the negligible exception of one individual who is opposed to the parliamentary union itself—that Northern Ireland is under-represented in this House and that steps ought to be taken without delay to remedy that under representation.
Last Thursday the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland indicated in the House that the first of these steps, the establishment of a conference under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker, was imminent and that the Government hoped to see its work commenced this month. I think that the whole House would agree that, now this decision has been taken and the steps to implement it set in train, the undertaking to the electors of Northern Ireland ought to be fulfilled with as little delay as possible.
Certainly, from the point of view of Northern Ireland, this Parliament ought, if possible, to be the last in which the under-representation is perpetuated. This obviously depends upon the period which Mr. Speaker's Conference will require for its deliberations and the further period which the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland will need for its consequential work. But, on the most pessimistic view, these two periods together are likely to be much less than the remaining statutory life of this Parliament. You will understand, therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in these circumstances, why my party is unwilling to see this work interrupted while progress is being made.
There is another consideration, which weighs heavily with us. I told the House last Thursday that my party is determined, if possible, not to see the so-called direct rule renewed in its present form. It is no secret that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Government, is actively engaged in studying the next constitutional step for Northern Ireland. It would be no service to anyone except ill-wishers of the people of Northern Ireland—and I am convinced that there are very few such people in this House—if this work were at this point in time to be interrupted by the upheaval of a General Election and possibly thrown back into the melting-pot altogether in consequence.
It is for these reasons that, in pursuance of our duty to the people of Ulster, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will


not be found in the "Aye" Lobby tonight.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: We have had a very thoughtful contribution from the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Bench will take note of what has been said and that due consideration will be given to it. In fact, the hon. Gentleman's speech, though brief, stood out from the various speeches that we have had in a debate which, as was said at an early point, has almost bordered on farce.
It is a great pity that, when we have this device to give minority parties the opportunity to have a day of parliamentary time, they should not have seized upon the opportunity to have a reasonable debate. To choose the device of seeking to reduce the Prime Minister's salary, and then to make the type of contribution that we have had from the nationalist Benches, has been a waste of parliamentary time.
It was said at the outset by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) that this was independence day, and that it was appropriate that we should have the debate on this day. Presumably, what we have had from the two nationalist parties is their declaration of independence. Presumably they are arguing that they want independence for Scotland and for Wales.
It is very intresting to have this revelation from the three Welsh nationalists, because in the past they have denied that theirs is a separatist party which wanted to break away and to create a completely separate political and economic unit in Wales, apart from the rest of Britain. It is, indeed, very interesting to have this on the record this evening, and to find the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), who used to shake his head in the devolution debates, now sitting quietly and listening to what has been said.
But the most disturbing factor tonight has been the references by Conservative Members to the Lib-Lab pact. This day—4th July—will be remembered as the day when we had a Tory-nationalist pact. I do not know whether it will be remembered for long. I am not sure

whether that pact will survive the night or whether it will last much longer than the Division in the Lobby.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who is an ardent anti-separatist, will lead his colleagues into the Lobby behind the two nationalist parties which have been arguing for independence and the breakup of the United Kingdom on the Floor of the House. In fact, the hon. Member for Cathcart talked about the economic situation as if it were completely and entirely the result of Government policy. He knows that that is not the case. He knows that Western Europe is passing through an economic recession. Although we have problems of unemployment and the cost of living, these problems are common to Western Europe.
In 1964, when the Labour Government came into office, they inherited a £353 million debt from the Tories. By 1970 the Labour Government had transformed that into a surplus of £733 million. That was the achievement of the previous Labour Government. Yet in four years the last Tory Government, before they tried to cut their losses and go to the country before they needed to do so, had transformed that £733 million surplus into a debt of £3,347 million. The last Tory Government left us with a balance of payments deficit of over £2,000 million a year and with record interest rates. Under this Government interest rates have come down from 15 per cent. to 8 per cent., but under the Tories we had record interest rates. We also had a 28 per cent. growth in money supply deliberately caused by the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) talked about the Prime Minister's speech at Aberystwyth this week. He said that when offshore oil flowed it would be a bonus for the economy. He implied that it was wicked for politicians to say that this will go into manufacturing industry. But that has been part of the problem of decline in the United Kingdom as a whole. We must recognise that one of the problems that has faced this Government has been the four-fold increase in the price of oil. That means that we have had to cut back on public expenditure, and on various other things, which have been deplored more by Labour Members than by the Tories.
Whereas my colleagues have disagreed with the Government in cutting back on public expenditure, all that the Tory Opposition have said is "We want more cuts. It is not enough." Of all the cuts in public expenditure, there is only one that the Tory Opposition regret, and that is the cut in defence expenditure. They want defence expenditure increased, but they say that public expenditure in toto should be cut back.
The hon. Member for Cathcart said that there would be a Left-wing takeover of the Government. That is a joke if ever there were one. What this country has seen is a Right-wing takeover of the Tory Party. The hon. Member for Cathcart and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), who will be summing up the debate, are two examples. They are not just a couple of Globtik advisers but people who are in the Right-wing section of the party. We have only to remember the way in which they removed the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) from office. Now we have the present Leader of the Opposition. We saw her political Svengali last night on television trying to make political capital out of the Grunwick dispute. Now an anti-trade union campaign is being waged. One can just imagine what will happen if the Tory Party comes back into office.
The hon. Member for Cathcart rightly dubbed the two nationalist parties as being parties of all things to all men. There is no basic political philosophy with the Welsh nationalists and there is none with the Scottish nationalists.

Mrs. Bain: Rubbish.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Mr. D. E. Thomas  rose—

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman never gives way to me but I shall give way to him.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I always give way to the hon. Gentleman. If I did not do so on this occasion it was because my speech was rather long. The basic political philosophy of my party is to have control by the community of its own resources. That is a very basic philosophy.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman must give it greater meaning. Some people say that Plaid Cymru is a Socialist party. But when it tries to get Liberal and Tory votes, that is soft-pedalled. We get Margo

MacDonald saying "We are a Socialist party" but then we get: the right hon. Member for Western Isles saying "We are not a Socialist party". The Scottish National Party is all things to all men and so are the Welsh nationalists. I shall be posing a question to the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Evans) as to how he will vote tonight. I shall be quoting something from what he has said.
I first come back to the right hon. Member for Western Isles. He referred to today as being the day of the American declaration of independence. The two nationalist parties equate themselves with former colonial territories and say that Scotland and Wales are colonies.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Internal colonies.

Mr. Evans: I do not look upon Wales as being a colony of the United Kingdom. We have the Prime Minister, who represents a Welsh constituency. The deputy Prime Minister represents a Welsh constituency. Mr. Speaker represents a Welsh constituency and is a Welshman and in the other place, before we abolish it, we have the Lord Chancellor, who is a Welshman, sitting on the Woolsack. In the Cabinet the Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary are of Welsh extraction. This talk of Wales being a colony is nonsense. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Carmarthen present. The hon. Gentleman has talked about 36 countries having received independence in recent years.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Self-government.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Do the hon. Gentleman and Plaid Cymru now believe in independence?

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Plaid Cymru does not speak of independence. It speaks of freedom, and it has its own philosophical and political reasons for doing so That has been the history of the party from its beginning.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Where do they stand? Before the hon. Member for Carmarthen returned to the Chamber, I put the question to the hon. Member for Merioneth—

Mr. D. E. Thomas: With respect, I did not intervene. But our position is quite clear. We believe in the inter-dependence of countries within the United Kingdom


and within the greater context of Europe and the Third world. In fact, we are more an inter-dependent and internationalist party than the Labour Party.

Mr. Ioan Evans: That is what this Parliament is all about. It is to maintain the inter-dependence of the British people and to deal with problems of inter-dependence whether they are in England, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall or anywhere. What is more, we must start solving them by looking at fundamental political and economic problems and not considering matters in a geographical context. Where are we to stop? If we had independence for Scotland tomorrow, we might have a sudden demand for independence for the Western Isles.

Mr. Donald Stewart: No.

Mr. Evans: The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) says "No". But, following the Balkanisation of Britain, we might face a demand for the Balkanisation of Scotland. If there is logic in saying that one part of a geographical area should break off from the whole, there is no reason why the part which breaks off should not itself splinter.

Mr. Donald Stewart: When the hon. Gentleman was at school in Wales, I am sure that he was asked the same question as pupils in England, Ireland and Scotland, namely: what are the British Isles? The answer was "England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales". These are the four countries. Did not the hon. Gentleman learn that in school?

Mr. Evans: Yes, of course. But what we have to remember is that we never thought in school that we would split up and that we would be separate.

Mrs. Bain: The hon. Gentleman should speak for himself.

Mr. Evans: I would never attempt to speak for the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain). He would be a foolish man who tried to do that. But, although we have England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, we have heard reasons put forward why they should break up politically.
But I return to independence. Earlier, the right hon. Member for Western Isles

referred to the independence of America. The Americans had cause—

Mr. Donald Stewart: So do we.

Mr. Evans: Mr. Evans. They were colonies. They were not represented in this place. The right hon. Gentleman is represented—

Mr. Donald Stewart: We voted for the guillotine. It did not make any difference.

Mr. Evans: Those former territories in the old British Empire, the American colonies, said "No taxation without representation". But the Scottish people, the Welsh people, the English people and people in Northern Ireland have taxation and they have representation.
I ask the right hon. Member for Western Isles why he and his colleagues did not come clean today and table a motion saying "We want an independent Scotland and we want an independent Wales", instead of tinkering about with the Prime Minister's salary. It may be that they wanted the Tories with them to give them a big vote in the Division later tonight.

Mr. John Mendelson: My hon. Friend should not underestimate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). Judging from his speech and the level of hypocrisy which he reached in it, he might well have supported a motion calling for the separation of Scotland.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is being a little unfair. I thought that the hon. Member for Cathcart made a very good contribution. In the course of it he accused the nationalist parties of being all things to all men. At the end, he said "Me, too". That is what the hon. Gentleman has done. He intends to go into the Division Lobby with the nationalist parties. I hope that they have an enjoyable conversation. They may discuss their tactics for the next debate on devolution.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen made a grave reference to Spain. Of course, there are differences. Just as Britain has different countries here, so they have in Spain. But what the hon. Gentleman did not say was that when General Franco was commanding in the Spanish Civil War he called himself a "nationalist"


and led the Nationalists against the Republicans.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Gentleman apparently finds something odd about the word "nationalist". Is he aware that the name of James Connolly is as highly regarded in Scotland as it is in Ireland? He was a Socialist, but he found no contradiction in standing up for his own country.

Mr. Evans: That may have been James Connolly's vision. But I believe that, if the people of Southern Ireland had fought to change the economic system rather than thinking that their political and econ-mic salvation lay in dividing Ireland, with all that has followed since, it would have been far better for the people of Ireland as a whole.
The Government face a number of difficulties. We have problems of unemployment, living standards and other difficulties. But the answer to these problems lies in changing the economic system. The answer is to move to a Socialist society. I believe that those who try to suggest that the solution lies in changing geographical boundaries do a great disservice to the country.
We have heard in this debate contributions by Scottish and Welsh nationalists, but we now know that a nationalist body has been formed in England. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. Following the split in the National Front, we now have a nationalist party here in England. It is as militantly racist as is the National Front. The leader of that new faction says that he wants to make his party in England the respectable party of English nationalism. So we shall have not only Scottish and Welsh nationalists but English nationalists, too.
We need to know whether the alliance between the nationalists and the Tories will be a permanent feature. I do not know who is to sum up for the nationalists because there has been a change in batting order. But whoever is to speak for them should say whether this is to be a permanent feature or a one-off affair for the purposes of publicity in Scotland and Wales.
The nationalists have chided the Liberals for joining with Labour to sustain the Government.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Labour has a pact.

Mr. Evans: Has not the SNP a pact with the Tories?

Mr. Stewart: No.

Mr. Evans: I am pleased to hear that there is to be no pact with the Tories. It is disturbing to hear the hon. Member for Carmarthen say that a Government led by the present Leader of the Opposition will give a big boost to nationalists in Wales. He has not retracted that statement. Is it a manoeuvre in order to bring about a General Election earlier rather than later? I do not think the Welsh nationalists will return to this House with a majority in Wales. I am sure that Plaid Cymru Members are wondering whether they will be back here next time. If any of them do return, I am certain that it will not be on an increased majority. Are the Welsh nationalists engineering a political crisis so that we can go to the country because they believe that they will gain some political advantage in the return of a Tory Government?
I turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Merioneth and in this context I wish to quote the Western Mail:
Worries that Plaid Cymru is becoming too identified with the Tories in opposing Labour at Westminster have been expressed at the party's National Council. The debate focused on the vote of confidence in the Government when Plaid voted against, following the failure of the devolution guillotine motion. Some party leaders said … that this action had been used with effect by Labour in some areas during the recent county council election campaign.
I confirm that. People were annoyed that Plaid Cymru Members went into the Division lobbies with the SNP seeking to bring down the Government. Furthermore, we won three seats from the Plaid Cymru in the local elections recently. The Western Mail then quotes a candidate as saying:
There have been a number of occasions where they could have abstained. Their reasons for voting against have been genuine enough but nevertheless the impression has been created that there is a liaison.
The article concluded.
Many felt that Labour would campaign on a platform of 'Keeping Thatcher out at all costs' and try to identify Plaid Cymru as far as possible with the Conservatives.


There is no need for us to identify them with the Conservatives. They have identified themselves. The hon. Member for Cathcart has said that they intend to follow them into the Lobby. Are they to ask them to be removed? If not, they are working in collusion.
Of course we can make criticisms about public expenditure cuts. Do the Scottish and Welsh nationalist party Members stand up in the House and say that we shall be better under a Tory Government as regards public expenditure cuts? So it is crocodile tears on public expenditure cuts. If they are to engineer the return of a Tory Government, it will be public expenditure cuts with a vengeance.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: The trouble with Scotland is the limited choice to which the hon. Member has just referred. It has too limited a choice between two London-ised parties. That is precisely why we are the only party that really wants an election—and the sooner the better.

Mr. Evans: When I realised that the hon. Lady had come back to the House, I reckoned that there must be a very limited choice in Scotland. The hon. Lady will witness in Scotland not only a resurgence of Labour, but the Tories will have a resurgence and the seats that the SNP won from the Tories last time may well be won back by the Tories at the next General Election.

Mrs. Bain: Mrs. Bain rose—

Mr. Evans: The hon. Lady must wait. We can have only one hon. Lady interrupting at a time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who was a first-class Secretary of State for Scotland—even the canvassing literature of the nationalists admits that—started by quoting Robert Burns, and I think that I should finish by making a quotation from Burns:
For a' that and a' that,
It's coming yet, for a' that,
That man to man the warld o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.
It is regrettable that the Scottish nationalists, joined by the Welsh nationalists, do not seem to want us to live as brothers on this small island. That is the way backwards for the people of Britain.
I am glad that we have had this opportunity to see where we stand with nationalism. It is deplorable and regrettable that the Tory Party, seeking every device to get power, is prepared to associate itself with this mischievous motion.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) surprised me a little in parts of his speech. I should have thought that he had heard enough quotations from the canvassing manual of the SNP not to waste his time trying to establish whether the Scottish nationalists are Conservative, Liberal, Tory, or anything else. They are always trying to please their audience, except when they are speaking in the House of Commons.
One of the most important speeches that we have heard in this debate was also one of the shortest, and that was the speech by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). I am sorry that the hon. Member thinks that a General Election would put Northern Ireland's constitutional situation into the melting pot. I am sure that he knows that the Conservative Party supports, on the basis of trying to work as well as it can with the governing party, the aim of achieving a solution to Ireland's constitutional problems generally. I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman can believe that to keep this Government in office, considering all the damage that they have done to the economic prospects of people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, can be in any way helpful to his constituents.

Mr. Molyneaux: We had two years, from 1972 until 1974, under a Tory Government during which time absolutely no progress was made except for some ill-fated, ill-starred experiments which collapsed. But, to give the present Government their due, they are at least making progress. I have said that it does not make sense to interrupt that progress as long as it continues.

Mr. Fletcher: I hope that the hon. Member would agree that, although the constitutional question in Northern Ireland is important, he was sent here on wider issues than that. I am sure that the economic prospects for people in


Northern Ireland are at least as important as the constitutional aspects of the Government's performance. The hon. Member's contribution was relevant to the whole debate today, particularly on devolution.
One of the problems of the way this Government are trying to tackle constitutional change in the United Kingom is that they are trying to find a solution for Northern Ireland, then they are looking at Wales and trying to find a different constitutional solution, and then looking at Scotland in a different light yet again. If we are to make any worthwhile changes in the constitution of the United Kingdom they should be based on a system that has relevance not to the separate parts of the country, but to the United Kingdom as a whole.
In opening the debate the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said that he would speak for Scotland. I wish he had done so. The political debate in Scotland needs to move away from the sterile constitutional arguments of nationalism. These have been plaguing political debate and making it more meaningless than constructive.
The Scottish National Party is no more ready than the Government to face up to the real problems of Scotland that are crying out for the attention of hon. Members. SNP Members are only interested in nationalism and in the structure of Government. They are obsessed with constitutional change and with providing jobs for the boys—and girls—of the SNP. To achieve their personal ambitions they need to look to a new system of structure of government, because they simply cannot make the grade under the present system.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles complained at length about the social and economic problems facing Scotland. He spoke about old people, under-privileged people, lack of opportunities for school leavers, and high unemployment. He is entitled to complain about these things in the terms of his motion, but I object to the way in which he allocates blame, particularly when he talks of betrayal—a favourite word of the nationalists—because most of those complaints are about devolved subjects such as housing, education, local government and law and order.
This weekend we saw serious reports of how dangerously near the West of Scotland was coming to a total breakdown in law and order—

Mr. Donald Stewart: I did not mention law and order.

Mr. Fletcher: If the right hon. Member was interested in talking about subjects that concern the people of Scotland, he would have mentioned law and order, because that is one subject in which they are most interested.
If subjects like housing and education have been neglected, as the nationalists claim, and if there has been betrayal, this betrayal has taken place in Scotland. It has been betrayal by Scots. That is not unusual, as anyone who has studied Scottish history will know. But it is not something for which the right hon. Member can blame the English.
The right hon. Member also mentioned the latest estimates for figures of the balance of trade with England. These prove once again that England is by far Scotland's biggest and most important customer. Yet the Scottish National Party would withdraw Scottish representation from this House. The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) was very keen on "complicity" and suggested that this was a weapon in the armoury of other parties but one that was not used by the SNP. He did not attempt to explain why the SNP runs away from any comparison with the Irish Republic. He made constant references to Scandinavian countries and other small countries in Europe, but not to the closest and most realistic example of "independence" that has ever taken place within the context of the United Kingdom. I can only assume that the facts are much too embarrassing for the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

Mr. MacCormick: Does the hon. Gentleman think that in any election or referendum the people of the Irish Republic would ever consent to come back under the governorship of this place?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman should know that one of the rules of this House is not to answer hypothetical questions. However, several Irish Members of Parliament at the European


Parliament have several times said that the one mistake that they made was to withdraw their representation from this House.

Mr. Crawford: Who?

Mr. Fletcher: Several Irish Members have said that to me at the European Parliament.

Mr. Crawford: Name them.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fletcher: No. Quite recently—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?

Mr. Fletcher: Quite recently, during the Irish elections, one Irish Member of Parliament said that the Irish Republic enjoyed so little autonomy that the Union Jack might well still be flying above the Post Office in Dublin.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fletcher: I am not giving way. I had hoped that the right hon. Member for Western Isles—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It must be clear to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Fletcher: I had hoped that the right hon. Member for the Western Isles would have taken this opportunity to think again about his recent reference to Scots and anti-Scots at the SNP conference in Dundee. It is bad enough to try to divide Briton against Briton—the Irish example should have taught the SNP the terrible dangers that lie ahead on that score—but it is even worse to try to divide Scot against Scot with the possible repercussions that could flow from that.
When the SNP shouts about independence, I look for evidence that a so-called independent Scotland will be more tolerant and free than or as tolerant and free as the country in which we live now, and I see no such evidence.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does not the hon. Gentleman call that hypothetical?

Mr. Fletcher: Not in the least. Freedom is real in Britain today. To examine the political posture of SNP Members and to inject it into the independent Scotland that they talk about is extremely difficult. Listening to their speeches and reading their letters in the Press I cannot imagine a so-called independent Scotland half as free or tolerant as the Scotland in which we live today.
I turn now to one or two reasons why, despite those remarks about the SNP, I shall support the motion tonight. I believe that even such a motley party as the SNP can occasionally say something to which it might be worth paying attention, and tonight it has done that.
The reason why I support the motion is simply that the Prime Minister has presided over a time of considerable constitutional change and, I think, damage. He has allowed party interests to become supreme to the interests of Parliament, of Cabinet Government and of the individual. This week's Second Reading debate on the European Assembly Elections Bill is the latest example of the Prime Minister's irresponsibility over constitutional matters.
The absence of proper Government support for the police doing their job at the Grunwick dispute is just another instance where the interests of the individual are totally unimportant to the Government when compared with the interests of the Labour Party. The Prime Minister has not only abdicated his responsibility for Cabinet Government: he has allowed parliamentary government to become subservient to outside bodies such as the TUC and the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party.
It is not just the Prime Minister's incompetence or his disregard for the constitution that has induced me to support this motion. It is his failure to take the one constitutional step which the country would like him to take, his cowardice in not calling a General Election and putting his Government's record to the test of public opinion. If he had the courage to do that, he would have much more claim to his office as Prime Minister and much more claim to his full salary.
The right hon. Gentleman has not even put in an appearance this evening to defend himself against the charges that


have been made. It is therefore all the more important that all Opposition Members—and certainly Conservative Members—should on this one occasion this evening support the Scottish National Party.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. David Knox: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), I support the motion, and I shall vote for it quite happily. I do not accept the argument advanced by some hon. Members that, because the motion has been put forward by the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, we should not support it. However bad those two parties may be, they are nothing like as bad as the Government.
This has been a very disappointing debate on the motion to reduce by half the salary of the Prime Minister. I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman has not participated in the debate, and even more astonished that he has been absent throughout it. I have a certain respect for the Prime Minister, and I am surprised that he should show such disrespect to the House on this occasion.
I support the motion for reasons not necessarily identical to those advanced by the nationalist parties. I am surprised that more hon. Members have not discussed the United Kingdom dimension to the motion. I support the motion simply because the Government of which the Prime Minister has been head has been a bad Government, and he must take the major part of the responsibility for that. The right hon. Gentleman may argue that part of the responsibility rests with his predecessor and I would not deny that, but he has been a prominent member of the Labour Government for the last three years, so I do not think that he can avoid responsibility for the state of the country today.
The Government have been in office for three years, and by any standards they have been a bad three years, the worst three years since the war. No matter by what standards the Government's performance is measured, whether by jobs, prices, the balance of payments or economic growth, they do not have one success story. No one would deny that the Labour Party inherited difficulties when it came into office. Oil prices had quad-

rupled immediately before, with the inevitable serious consequences. The Conservative Party has always recognised that, which is more than can be said of Labour's attitude to the increases in commodity prices in the last two years of the last Conservative Government. I do not deny the difficulties that the Government had when they came into office, but they encouraged a wage and salary explosion during their first 15 months of office which led to increases of 30 to 40 per cent, which led eventually to the price explosion of 1975–76.
To a large extent, most of the problems that the Government have suffered in the economic sphere since then have been due to their inadequacies at that time and to the dismantling of the incomes policy of the previous Conservative Government. Of course, in July 1975 they reintroduced an incomes policy, but had they not abandoned the policy of the previous Conservative Government, they would never have got themselves into such a serious situation. We should not have had hyperinflation, the present level of 1½ million people out of work, and our present large balance of payments deficit. We should also not have suffered from nil economic growth throughout that period. During the past three years there has been no growth in this country, which means that living standards have declined and that the social and public services are lower than they need to be.
Today we have private and public squalor and much of the responsibility for that must rest with the Labour Party. It is therefore perfectly reasonable that the Prime Minister should share in some of this private squalor by having his salary cut.
So far I have spoken about the economy. The Prime Minister can pass the buck to his predecessor to some extent in that matter, but he cannot do so with devolution or his Government's attitude to Europe. I do not wish to go into the whys and wherefores of devolution Suffice it to say that devolution was the major measure introduced by the Government in this Session of Parliament. We were assured that it would reach the statute book. Now it is as dead as a duck. We are now promised it for next year. Anyone who believes that will believe anything.
I am most concerned about the attitude of the Government to Europe. The attitude of most British Governments to Western Europe since the end of the war has left much to be desired, but the attitude of the present Government during the past three years has left most to be desired. This country entered the Common Market on 1st January 1973. We entered on terms that would have been acceptable to the previous Labour Government—if we are to accept the word of formers Ministers in that Government. In the period immediately leading up to our joining the Common Market the Labour Party changed its mind and attitude to Europe and then opposed our entry.
Then the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) thought up the idea of a referendum. So, after the 1974 election, we started the process of renegotiating our entry. That having been concluded, the referendum took place two years ago and it resulted in confirmation of our membership of the Community. In the two years that have followed the Government have done nothing to play a proper and full part in building a new Europe. Indeed, their former colleague, Roy Jenkins, made that point with some force in Glasgow at the weekend.
The Government have dragged their feet particularly over direct elections to the European Parliament. I appreciate that we shall be discussing that matter later this week.
In all the Common Market discussions and the great debate on the issue the anti-Marketeers made a great deal of the excessive bureaucracy in the Community. Those of us who supported our entry into the EEC believed that direct elections to the European Parliament would help to democratise the Community and the Commission, and to make the whole process of European decision-making more sensitive to public opinion. We also believed that, because this country had a longer experience of democracy and the workings of democratic institutions than other member countries of the EEC, we should give a lead. However, as a country we have dragged our feet.
The Prime Minister, in his present office and as Foreign Secretary, has also dragged his feet, so that we now find ourselves not giving a lead but following behind. The Bill that will provide for

direct elections has just been introduced to the House, within less than a year of the date when the legislation must come into being. In my judgment, and that of most strong Europeans, we should have given a lead on this matter. On his failure on this score, if on no other the Prime Minister should be condemned. There is every justification for his salary being halved, and I shall happily vote for the motion tonight.

9.5 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: Before I turn to many of the points which have been raised in the debate I should like to endorse a comment made by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox), who commented on the notable absence of the Prime Minister throughout the whole of today's proceedings. The Scottish people, if they were doubtful about the Government's commitment to them and needed any convincing that that commitment is less than half-hearted, will have found that absence a remarkable demonstration. I am sure that they will draw their own conclusions from the right hon. Gentleman's absence.
Instead of the Prime Minister we have been treated to an array of second-class substitutes—on both Front Benches. We have had the Westminster puppets who dance the tune for which they are paid. The Conservative Party, as the official Opposition, cannot condemn the Government outright because of the Prime Minister's failure to appear, since the Leader of the Opposition has not seen fit to appear in the Chamber either.

Mr. Raison: Mr. Raison rose—

Mrs. Bain: The hon. Gentleman has hardly been here at all today.
One of the more unfortunate parts of this debate—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—

Mrs. Bain: —has been the entirely predictable reactions of Labour and Tory Members. I feel on many occasions, when the SNP or Plaid Cymru raises any issue, that I could write the speeches of Labour and Conservative Members for them. The lack of originality in their contributions is in direct relation to the declining fortunes of their parties in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Rifkind: When the hon. Member is criticising Conservative and Labour Front Benches for lack of originality in their speeches would she indicate one original remark in the speech of the leader of her party, the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart)?

Mrs. Bain: I would never expect the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) to describe anything said by anyone in my party as original. The Opposition and the Government wish to split the friendship, respect and mutual trust of those in the nationalist parties who seek democracy for their countries. That trust of which I speak so obviously exists on these Benches. I joined the Scottish nationalist movement when listening to a speech by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), because I admired his integrity, his standing and his views. I have not altered my opinion in any way just because there is a different emphasis in our national outlooks.
The point that is extremely difficult for our opponents to accept is that there is an alternative dimension in British politics. They wish to continue with their monolithic parties and monolithic Stales, refusing to recognise the differences and to accept that these differences are, in themselves, worthwhile.
The Secretary of State for Wales, who refused to give way to me earlier today, should bear in mind what the Secretary of the Scottish Labour Party has recently said and then ask himself whether the Scottish National Party presents an alternative to the people of Scotland. She said on radio that what the Labour Party in Scotland must hope for, if it is to survive, was a revival of the Conservative Party.
It is much more worth while for hon. Members to address themselves to what has frequently been said by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who is perhaps one of the most honest Conservatives in this House. He has said that an effective union must have the trust and support of the constituent parts of that union. Surely the very existence in this House of 14 Members from nationalist parties is an indication of the lack of trust and support of the constituent parts. The hon. Member for Oswestry has stated that the option open to Scotland is that of a separate Scottish State or the status quo. This is a view I entirely endorse.
The gesturing we have seen today makes that crystallisation of options much mere clear in terms of internal constitutional change within the United Kingdom. We in Scotland and Wales are not afraid to welcome the responsibilities, challenges and opportunities of independence, even if the Labour and Conservative Parties are afraid to do so. That is because we shall not accept the alternative option, which is the continuation of being poor regions of a declining United Kingdom.
Our movements are not unique in the modern context. There is an international trend towards recognition of small nation States, and indeed the United Nations Organisation has doubled its membership since its establishment because small countries have been recognised as nation States. I ask hon. Members who oppose what is happening in Scotland and Wales, and who oppose the democratic aspirations of those peoples, to address themselves to that fact and to question themselves when next they praise what they call freedom fighting in other countries and what they condemn in Scotland and Wales.
I turn to the official Opposition, because it was very obvious that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) had deep psychological worries about joining the Scottish National Party tonight in the Lobbies. But it should not, of course, be particularly difficult for him to rationalise his position, because he is recognised as one of the best contortionists in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing)—the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—has said, the hon. Member for Cathcart thought of joining the SNP. It is greatly to the advantage of the SNP and a tribute to our great sense that we did not accept him as a member.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Lady would freshen my memory on that point.

Mrs. Bain: If the hon. Gentleman would care to write to my party chairman, Mr. William Wolfe, I am sure that he would be able to fetch the letters out of his file.
The hon. Member for Cathcart resorted to his usual scaremongering and presented no positive policies from the Conservative Party except the same old clichés that we have heard before—"We shall cut


taxation, give freedom of choice and emphasise the individual." No definition was given. Indeed, the hon. Member was aided and abetted later in the day by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who used, as usual, his tactics of innuendo, allegation and hypothesis.
Of course, these people are extremely worried because the SNP has presented itself as the official opposition not only in this House but in Scotland, and because, of course, we are the only party that genuinely seeks a General Election and is genuinely trying to bring a better standard of living to the people of Scotland.
The hon. Member for Cathcart had great fun talking about a canvassing manual proposed by the SNP. Of course, in the Conservative Party in Scotland, its members do not bother producing canvassing manuals because they have no canvassers. I remind the hon. Gentleman of one of the resolutions that appeared in the Conservative Party's agenda at Perth this year. I cannot remember which constituency forwarded it, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember. This is an indication to hon. Members of the state that the Conservative Party in Scotland is in. The resolution read:
That this Conference believes that a Party organisation would be a good thing.
It is no wonder, indeed, that the Glasgow Herald correspondent at Perth found it necessary to take himself elsewhere to amuse himself because the discussion was on such a low level.
Of course, the Conservative Party has little cause for optimism in Scotland. One reflects on the fact that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition is on record as saying that there is no place in British politics for a third party. How true that is in the Scottish context! The most recent opinion polls show the SNP as having 38 per cent., the Labour Party having 28 per cent. and the Conservatives all of 23 per cent. The hon. Member for Cathcart, in his new-found rôle as Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, always tries to say that in the district elections held recently in Scotland the Conservative Party experienced a great revival. That was not so, as one finds if one analyses the results in a truthful manner, because the SNP gained 38·4 per cent. of the votes cast, the Labour Party

gained 338 per cent. and the Conservative Party gained 25·1 per cent. The Liberal Party, perhaps as a result of its pact, gained 1·7 per cent.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Mr. Teddy Taylor  rose—

Mrs. Bain: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me complete my analysis of the district election results.
All in all, the Conservatives had a frustrating time. They achieved a minuscule improvement in their share of the vote—0·4 per cent.—but their actual vote fell by 5 per cent. In Edinburgh the Tory vote held amost static while in Glasgow it fell by 9·4 per cent. In Dundee, which was wide open for an anti-Labour swing and with no SNP challenge, the Tories could register only one gain, and failed to take overall control.

Mr. Harry Selby: In which constituency did they drop their vote? In Govan.

Mrs. Bain: I am sure that that was because the people in Govan recognise the amazing contribution made to the Scottish economy by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Selby).
In Aberdeen they did not make a single gain. In the new towns their intervention turned out to be a very damp squib. Their only successes came as a result of split votes, where the SNP took more votes from Labour than from the Conservatives.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Mr. Teddy Taylor  rose—

Mrs. Bain: I shall not give way to the hon. Member just yet. With respect to the hon. Member—and I do not have a great deal of respect for him—I have not yet finished with him.
The situation must be seen against a background of landslide Tory gains in the English local elections with 1,335 net gains.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Despite the hon. Lady's distortions of the figures, does she accept that as a result of the municipal elections the Conservative Party now controls councils covering more than half of the Scottish population? Does she accept that in Glasgow where the SNP holds the balance, its only contribution to local government is to give a contract to direct labour over the head of a private firm and to propose the opening of a public bar in city chambers?

Mrs. Bain: In those areas where the SNP already has control as opposed to being a major representative group they have shown good results in terms of administration and management of resources. The low ebb of the Tories is due to their failure on devolution.

Mr. Raison: I am interested in the argument about whether the Prime Minister's salary should be cut. I cannot see that anything that the hon. Lady is saying has anything to do with that.

Mrs. Bain: Perhaps the hon. Member does not appreciate how much I am trying to put at rest the mind of his hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart who is so worried about how the Conservative Party are doing.
In July 1967 the Sunday Post, a well-known paper in Scotland, reported the hon. Member for Cathcart as saying,
I think it's a good thing the Scottish Nationalists are making Parliament more aware of Scottish grievances.
…I think there's something to be said for a Parliament in Edinburgh"…Scotland's too far from Whitehall where there's a tendency to view our problems as theoretical difficulties rather than something affecting five million people.
The Scottish Secretary is almost a Government in himself. Maybe that's the attraction now. He's responsible for a fantastic variety of Scottish interests, from health to fishing. Vet we can only ask him questions one day every six weeks.'
Now it is every four weeks. The hon. Member went on:
This is simply not enough to cover the tremendous amount of ground. The Scottish Grand Committee does meet every Tuesday and Thursday. But we're not allowed to ask questions then. It boils down to this—Scots don't get a fair say in the running of their country.
In May 1972 the hon. Member reaffirmed his support for a Scottish Assembly in the House of Commons. In December that year he asked the Secretary of State to provide a report on the progress towards a Scottish Assembly. In May 1974 he attacked people in the Conservative Party who were against an assembly for Scotland because it would be dominated by the Labour Party. He said:
If we have so little faith in ourselves that we believe we cannot capture the hearts and minds of the people of Scotland then we do not deserve to succeed as a party.

In October 1974, in his own constituency manifesto, the hon. Member for Cathcart said:
We will establish a Scottish Assembly to ensure that decision making is removed from London. There will be a separate Scottish Budget controlled by the Secretary of State.
Now we come to the back-track. In July 1975 the hon. Gentleman said:
Conservatives must rethink their devolution policy if an Assembly means more bureaucracy and taxation
In October 1975, speaking to his constituency association, he said
Those who claim that the setting up of the Assembly will of itself preserve the Union are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Then, when he joined the "Keep Britain United"campaign, this is what the hon. Gentleman said:
The time has come to speak out against the cost of an Assembly and the danger that it would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
The truth is that the Conservative Party has no commitment to an elected Assembly in Scotland. There are so many different views within the Conservative Party that it has to have a variety of spokesmen on the issue. One of its Front Benchers wants a Select Committee to waste time on the issue. The hon. Member for Oswestry says that the choice is between independence and the status quo. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) wants Scottish Members of Parliament to meet in Scotland occasionally—presumably, at airports or some such place. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands wants a federal system, but he does not want it to be called a federal system in case people call him a Liberal.
So much for the Conservative Party. I turn now to the Government. In his opening speech, the Secretary of State for Scotland made some cheap remarks about the difficulties which my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) had in reaching this place to take part in the debate. It is all very well for those hon. Members who live in or near London and have no more than a journey on the Underground to get here; it is a very different matter when one lives in a remote area such as Argyll, where the transport problems have been totally


ignored by both this Government and their predecessors.
The Secretary of State said that wages in Scotland were coming into line with those in England. That has never been denied by members of the Scottish National Party. But the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the best gauge of wealth is average household income. That must be the criterion used if we are to draw comparisons of that kind. In 1975 the Family Expenditure Survey showed that the Scots had 95·2 per cent. of average household income in England, 85·5 per cent. of that in the South-East, and 966 per cent. of the United Kingdom average. So there is still a gap, and we wish to see it put right.
In 1975 Regional Surveys showed that the cost of living in Scotland was 5½ per cent. higher than the average for the United Kingdom, and during that year house prices rose by twice the United Kingdom average, while food cost 5 per cent. more in Scotland and transport costs were 3 per cent. higher.
I turn now to the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). He said that it was not the Government's fault that the devolution Bill had not been put on the statute book. I shall go into that in more detail later. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to rationalise himself out of a situation in which his own party cannot make this an issue of confidence, I find it difficult to accept that his Government cannot bear responsibility for the failure of devolution. As for the hon. Gentleman's statement that the SNP at its conference in Dundee this year suddenly announced itself as in favour of independence, I can only wonder how politically involved the hon. Gentleman has been during the past decade. I was under no illusion that I was joining a party committed to anything other than independence.

Mr. Buchan: With respect—and with some envy, I should add—I must remind the hon. Lady that I have been involved in these matters for a great deal longer than she has, and I know of the permanent commitment to independence. In saying that I did, I had in mind, for example, the statements of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East

Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid), who said that there was no guarantee that the SNP would any longer support a devolution Bill in the House, and, second, the decision of the conference itself, which was not to go for devolution as a first step but to go for independence only instead. That is what was new.

Mrs. Bain: The purpose of the motion is to bring forward a General Election with the possibility of moving to independence that much more quickly, because Scotland can no longer afford the Westminster connection. Independence is not a luxury but an essential for Scotland.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West also spoke about the book entitled "Scotland 1980". He made the basic and classic error of assuming that the working assumptions of the economists were sacrosanct. One of the working assumptions was that North Sea oil would come under Scottish sovereignty with a settlement allowing 30 per cent. of the revenues to England. That is not necessarily sacrosanct. Equally it is not sacrosanct that Scotland will be an individual member of the EEC. These matters have to be decided in an independence situation.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in his usual schoolmasterly way, made comments about the lack of constructive suggestions from these Benches, particularly on education. He should read the speeches made from these Benches on the subject of education, since most of the constructive suggestions made to the Government have come from us.
I refer the Secretary of State, for the umpteenth time, to the question of pupil-teacher ratios against class size and ask him to address his mind to the question of the development of composite classes. I quote to him the view of the Dundee local association of the EIS. It wishes
to make it clear that the increasing use of composite classes is a direct result of the enormous cuts in educational expenditure in the region, and is symptomatic of a serious deterioration in educational standards.
Against that background, it is not good enough to say that we have the best pupil-teacher ratios ever. On the question of colleges, we have advocated the development of in-service courses, particularly against the background of frequent


reports such as the Dunning, Munn and Pack reports. Three major reports in one year. If Scottish school teachers are to be able to participate fully in the development and implications of EEC membership in-service courses must be extended.
I have already referred in several other speeches to teacher unemployment, and I shall not bore the House with the statistics. They are recorded in Hansard. However, i should like to refer to a letter which I received today from Bob McClement, Scottish Secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters, who, I believe, is still a Labour councillor in Glasgow. Referring to the statistics which I elicited from the Government last week, he writes:
I would go as far as to say that, including teachers on pension, there are more qualified teachers in Scotland who are not employed in teaching than there are in teaching. Why, then, do we still fail to do something for the deprived areas?
On the question of unemployment, which is one of the major issues in society, the Government must stand condemned. "Back to work with Labour" was what they promised in 1974. The Conservative Party need not think that its record on this issue is particularly good. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, in his party's manifesto for Scotland in 1970:
Too many Scots have left because life seems better elsewhere. I remember coming to Glasgow after the hurricane and seeing the hardship which Socialist delays and muddles brought to the people of Scotland. That was typical of the way the Socialists have treated Scotland.
By January 1971 unemployment had increased to 113,000. That was when the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock made his classic statement. By the time that the Tory Government fell in 1974, we had a three-day week, unlit streets and un-heated workplaces. We know the record of the Labour Party in government on this issue, yet it claims to be the party which protects working people.
The Scottish National Party has made several constructive suggestions in various debates in the House in an attempt to solve the unemployment problem. They have been rejected out of hand by the Government. The Secretary of State for Scotland refused categorically to give an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) when he challenged him on

the effects of the Common Market on employment opportunities in Scotland. In the comparisons which the SNP makes with other small nations, we consider countrie swhich are not in the EEC and which manage their own resources for themselves.
Other suggestions we have made are that there should be a 10 per cent. flat rate on VAT and that small businesses should have a £15,000 annual turnover before VAT becomes applicable. We have also advocated an increased budget for the Scottish Development Agency.
Finally, and briefly—because, if the standards of today are anything to go by, I am sure that the Minister who is to close the debate will have many interesting suggestions to make to us, and I should not like to miss the opportunity of hearing yet more promises—I make passing reference to devolution.
On four occasions today during his opening speech the Secretary of State for Scotland refused to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid), who wished to put a question to him on the Government's record on devolution. Since the Secretary of State refused to give way, I now put these questions to the Minister who is to reply to the debate.
If the Bill is on, in terms of devolution, why do the Government refuse to make it an issue of confidence? If, indeed, the Bill is on, why has work ceased on the High School in Edinburgh? Perhaps the refusal of the Government to give way to my hon. Friend is due to their poor record on this issue.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is sitting on the Front Bench smiling, said on 30th January 1975:
It is wrong to say there has been a slippage. We are bang on target, and if anything we are ahead of schedule. I see nothing to suggest we will not publish the devolution Bill by the beginning of November.
In the same interview he stood by the timetable to have the Bill on the statute book in July 1976 and first elections to the Assembly by the end of 1976 or early 1977. He said that he would allow up to six months for the transfer of powers and that the Assembly could be in operation by mid-1977.
I could go through many other points, made by such people as the previous


Lord President of the Council and the previous Prime Minister, but I come back to the Prime Minister whose salary we are seeking to reduce today.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Where is he?

Mrs. Bain: Where is he, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) has just said? In August 1976 the Prime Minister said in Glasgow:
It is the Government's desire that Parliament should come to a conclusion on these matters in the forthcoming session and I am confident it will do so.
There is no confidence left on this particular Bench in the empty promises of Prime Ministers, Lord Presidents of the Council, Secretaries of State or, indeed, Shadow Secretaries of State. We wish to see elections taking place in this country so that the people of Scotland and Wales can decide for themselves their own opinion of both these monolithic parties and establish real parliaments with real powers in our nations.

9.33 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I find it difficult adequately to describe this debate. I thought at one moment—indeed, for the greater part of the speech of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain)—that we were discussing something wholly different. I thought that she was proposing a manuscript admendment to the motion on the salary of the Prime Minister, and that we were to discuss instead the salary of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). Or, if it was not a manuscript amendment, I thought that it was a printing error, because she spent the greater part of her speech dealing with the Tory Party. We had this strange attack, paragraph by paragraph and page by page. Nevertheless, to my great surprise, I find that the Conservative Opposition intend to vote in the nationalist Lobby tonight.
One of the wisest remarks of the debate came towards the tail end, in the intervention of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), when he questioned the hon. Lady as to what her speech had to do with the Prime Minister's salary. I find it exceedingly odd that the guidance and advice which have flowed from the major Opposition party to its supporters is to come here at

10 p.m., or shortly before, in order to vote with the Scottish National Party tonight. It must be one of the most colossal errors of judgment of all time by the Conservative Party.

Mrs. Bain: The Secretary of State really cannot condemn the Opposition, since his own Benches have been empty all day.

Mr. Morris: I hope that the hon. Lady will do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say. What I am seeking to say is that she did not debate the Prime Minister's salary. She spent the overwhelming part of her speech discussing the conduct of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Cathcart, to the great amusement of the hon. Member for Aylesbury.
I would advise the Opposition Front Bench immediately to call for a Shadow Cabinet so that it can consider its position. It will find it difficult to explain to its supporters, having regard to the vindictive nature of the attack that we have just heard, how on earth it finds itself in the same Lobby as the nationalist parties.

Mr. Raison: I entirely admit that we are in a very rum situation. In these bizarre circumstances it seems sensible to adhere to that old-fashioned tradition and vote on the motion. That is what we shall vote for tonight rather than all the rubbish which has been talked.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Member for Aylesbury is right to say that we are in a rum situation, but it is he who is in a rum position and not us. If the Opposition, having perpetrated this colossal blunder, find themselves in the nationalist Lobby tonight, they will remind me of the old infantry regiment whose motto was "Loyal to the end".
The nationalist parties have put down a motion, which has not been supported by one iota of evidence, that we should reduce the Prime Minister's salary. We heard the case for Scotland. It was mainly an attack against the Conservative Opposition. That was adumbrated by one speaker after the other.
I shall try to deal with some of the points that have not been covered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I hope that the House


will understand if I concentrate on the Welsh points made during the debate.
Right through these two Parliaments, from March 1974, the constant cry of the nationalist parties is that this Government do not mean business in what they say about devolution. This was the theme in the debate on the Queen's Speech, a debate which hon. Members of the nationalist parties would like to forget. It was a theme that recurred time after time. The White Paper was derided and decried as a delaying tactic. It was said that consultation had been meaningless and that even the Bill itself had been somewhat insincere.
I find it odd that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) is not winding up the debate tonight. I thought that in a debate concerned with minority parties there would have been equality of treatment and that the hon. Member for Carmarthen would have had the privilege of winding up the debate rather than being stuck in the middle. Perhaps we shall have some explanation at some stage.
It is all very well to have meaningless slogans. It is my recollection and impression that the slogan of the Welsh nationalists was to have a Parliament for Wales in five years. That was 25 years ago. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East set out the position of the SNP. It is still for independence. The hon. Member for Carmarthen shakes his head. I am glad to note the difference of approach between the two nationalist parties.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East says that the SNP is proud to advocate independence, but the hon. Member for Carmarthen says "No". What Plaid Cymru stands for is Commonwealth status. The hon. Gentleman Soes not deny that. The SNP wants a separate army, air force and navy and a seat at the United Nations. Of course, in the Summer Recess we hear of their international negotiations, as we did two years ago for setting up large sheep deals with countries such as Libya. That is a policy of separatism, and both nationalist parties stand for the break-up of the United Kingdom.
The Government's proposals have nothing to do with that unhappy doctrine. They stand at the opposite pole. Far

from seeking a break-up of the United Kingdom, the moderate and sensible proposals that we have made are designed to achieve the reverse—to enhance and to deepen the unity of the United Kingdom and to strengthen those bonds that have kept us all together so long and that most of us value so highly.
The nationalists tell their critics that there would be trading links with England. Who in his right senses could imagine that there would not be? But once the argument is properly faced, it is a separatist policy for which they stand. It is independence as far as independence can go, and their latest slogans are "Scotland first" and "Wales first"; it is Scotland's oil and no one else's; Scotland could be rich, and who cares for England or even for little Wales?
In their calmer moments, I hope that the Welsh nationalists will explain to the people of Wales how much they stand to lose if they do not share in the wealth of the North Sea. If by some stretch of the imagination this bonanza, as the Scottish National Party would have it, were cornered by a separate Scotland, all the roads, pensions and schools which would be paid for out of Scottish oil would be the "perk" of Scotland. Nothing would come to England or to Wales.
If one takes the argument a stage further, what if the Scots have their oil, the English have a share, but a separate independent Wales is unlucky in the Celtic Sea? Nothing would be obtained for Wales. This is what the break-up of the United Kingdom stands for, and this is what the nationalist party in Wales has a duty to explain.
It was endearing to hear the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East say that she was converted by the hon. Member for Carmarthen and that this was why she became a nationalist. Perhaps one day she will tell him how the SNP seeks to repay this great evangelical mission in terms of the lack of fruit that Wales would enjoy from the discovery of oil.
There should be no doubt about the Government's determination to carry through legislation on devolution in the next Session of Parliament. We are the first Government to put devolution firmly on the political agenda of Parliament and of the country, and we are presently preparing legislation which will be an


essential feature of the Government's programme in the next Session. We are working on the form and content of that legislation with the aims of simplifying the details wherever possible and of making our proposals more widely acceptable in the House.

Mr. Crawford: On that very point—

Mr. Morris: I am afraid that I have not the time to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. I have a great deal of ground to cover in the short time at my disposal. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East went a little over her time.
The proposal to reduce the salary of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is an all-embracing motion to cover the whole of the Government's record. I have no doubt that that record is a good one in Wales. Of course, we suffer from far too high levels of unemployment. But this is not a Welsh problem only. It is not a Scottish one only or even an English one. It is a European problem. Indeed, it is a problem right across the developed world.
What should be recognised is the efforts that the Government have made to ameliorate unemployment. Without the whole catalogue of measures that we have carried out there would have been 37,000 people in Wales without jobs. That is the achievement of the temporary employment subsidies, the work creation schemes and all the other measures introduced by this Government, and it is evidence of our care, our compassion and our understanding of this major problem.
Without our priorities—and I see that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) has just returned to the Chamber, and I must tell him that I found his speech incomprehensible—there could be thousands of people with no separate homes, of insufficient or grossly inadequate homes in Wales. Again, there is more to be done, and I would be the first to admit it. But if the Labour Government were not in power and if the trends of the last Tory Government were confirmed, there would be an appalling housing situation in Wales.
In terms of road building, for example, we inherited stagnation. We got on with the building of the M4, a project which had been promised completion by 1976.
We set up the Welsh Development Authority in the teeth of Tory opposition. We also set up the Development Board for Rural Wales when the last Tory Government had killed off the efforts of Labour to find a solution to part of the Mid-Wales problem. Once they killed that off, they offered nothing in the years that followed.
That basically is our approach. At the beginning of the debate we saw a double act provided by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Carmarthen. The Tory Party is adopting a strange approach this evening in supporting that double act. Tory Members will be the biggest political contortionists of all time if they go into the Lobby with the nationalists. The Tories will have their faces in one direction and their feet in the other. As one of my distinguished compatriots once said:
I would be glad to have their explanation on the morrow of this.
The two nationalist leaders in this House in that double act were then joined, somewhat strangely, by the hon. Member for Cathcart who, rightly and properly, spent all his time washing his hands of the policy of the SNP. Nevertheless, his speech concluded with the statement that he would support the nationalists in the Lobby. I find that attitude absolutely incomprehensible. It is quite beyond my understanding.
The hon. Gentleman then said "I support this motion because it will mean an election". In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I must quote the whole of his statement, namely: "I support it because it would mean the election of a Conservative Scotland". What will the SNP gain from a Conservative Scotland? Indeed, what will Plaid Cymru get out of a Conservative Wales? Will either party be met in any of its claims? Will it obtain those claims under a Conservative Government? Of course not.
I found it incomprehensible at the opening of the debate to hear the right hon. Member for Western Isles mention the reserves who would help him in the Lobby. There are the reserves—the Tories. They have perpetrated this colossal piece of political misjudgment in support of a motion which substantially, in its terms and in the way in which it


has been put before the House, is an attack on the Opposition.
In Wales—and I am confident that the position is exactly the same in Scotland—over the years the Conservatives have offered nothing.

Mr. Crawford: Mr. Crawford  rose—

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman can make his own Conservative speech at some other time when he explains to his electors why he wants a devolution measure that contains more than the Government measure had to offer, but yet is willing to support a Conservative Government who will deny him all of that.

Mr. Crawford: Mr. Crawford rose—

Mr. Morris: No. I want to continue.
I wish to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen. He said that the only initiative for devolution would come from the Labour Party: nothing would come from the Tories. Why do he and his colleagues find them-salves time after time in the Lobby with the Tories? It is not the first occasion. It happened in the Division on the Gracious Speech in 1974. It happened on the vote of confidence the other night. It happened as regards the SNP—it may well be that it happened for the Welsh nationalists, too, I know not—on the Dock Work Regulation Bill, on the National Enterprise Board, on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, and on the Community Land Bill.
Time after time the two nationalist parties have found themselves in the Opposition Lobby—in the Tory Lobby. This is what they must explain to the people of Wales and of Scotland.

Mr. Crawford: Mr. Crawford 
rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat. Clearly the Secretary of State does not intend to give way.

Mr. Morris: I am not sure of the hon. Gentleman's antecedents in this matter. Obviously, he wants to make a speech in support of the hon. Member for Cathcart. I am sure that he will have other occasions on which to do so.
I understand why the two nationalist parties are determined, not for the first time, to bring down the Government. The

reason was enshrined in the words of the hon. Member for Carmarthen, who made tonight the biggest admission of all time, namely, that a Tory Government under the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition will give the biggest boost of all time to nationalism in Wales. That is what it is all about. It is in exactly the same way as one of the officials of the nationalist party in Wales said in the 1960s—it was reported at the time—words to the effect that the more unemployment there was in Wales, the better it was for nationalism. The Welsh nationalists were prepared then, as they are now, to make political capital out of human misery. That is their record now.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Secretary of State has referred to the subject of unemployment and the Tories. Can he recall a time when unemployment in Scotland or in Wales was as high as it is under the present Socialist Government?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows—one of my hon. Friends made the point in an earlier speech—the record of the Tory Party in the 1930s. The hon. Gentleman, who objects to separatism and to independence, is the last person to say that the figures for Scotland or for Wales can be treated separately. He knows, I know and everybody else in the House knows that we are interdependent in the matter of unemployment. We know that we are part and parcel of the economy of the United Kingdom.
Short of separatism, short of independence—as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman opposes that, unless tonight he has again changed his heart; some of the allegations made by the hon. Lady may be true: I know not—the economy of Wales and that of Scotland cannot be divorced from the economy of the rest of the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) mentioned the difficulties of Glenfield and Kennedy in his constituency. We all know how concerned he is and how involved he has become in this issue. I think that my right hon. Friend is aware that Ministers and officials in the Scottish Office have been having intensive discussions over the past two weeks with Crane Limited—the ultimate owners in the United Kingdom—exploring various possibilities for the


rescue of Glenfield and Kennedy and thus the preservation of jobs at Kilmarnock, about which my right hon. Friend is concerned. Only very short notice was given by Crane Limited of the decision to close the Glenfield and Kennedy factory at Kilmarnock.
Contrary to the statement issued by the company, no viable proposition to continue the business came forward from any quarter. Of the two propositions referred to by Crane Limited, one was put forward only on 27th June and was withdrawn after preliminary discussions between the company and officials. The other proposition, in the company's view, held no prospect of securing a viable project and therefore of continuing employment.
I understand that the receiver has been appointed today for the company and that officials of the Scottish Economic Planning Department will have talks with him. The Government stand ready to assist in any scheme that will allow the business, or any part of it, to be continued on a viable basis. I thought that my hon. Friends, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, would want to hear that information.
In our programmes for advance factories, in the setting up of development agencies, and in the rate of building in Wales we have taken vital steps to plan and provide for the future. I make no apologies when advance factories are empty for a short period. They are there to prime the pump—ready for when business wants to expand. If it is the policy of the Welsh nationalists to stop building advance factories, perhaps they would tell me so, and I will know what to tell the people of Merioneth, Caernarvon and right across Wales.
This Government have lifted the programme of house building from the low

level of our predecessors, and the tragedy is that, having obtained increased resources running at £30 million in one year and £20 million in each of the three subsequent years, local authorities are not able to spend the money that has been made available to them. For example, in Merioneth there has been underspending.

I have read with great interest some of the comments made on the vote of confidence when the nationalist parties voted with the Tories. On the last occasion one of the Welsh nationalist propagandists said:
What we did on the vote of confidence was to confuse a lot of our potential supporters in the Labour and trade union movements.
Those are the words of the hon. Member for Merioneth. The record shows that this has happened time after time—on the Queen's Speech and then on the vote of confidence. The hon. Member went on to say that in his view this impression was reinforced in the valleys in the recent district and county election campaigns.

The picture in Wales is that the nationalist party has aligned itself with the Tories. The Tories tonight will make the biggest mistake of all time in supporting the nationalist parties. I am confident that when we return to face the electors, the Prime Minister and his colleagues in Wales and many more will be returned to Parliament because we are determined to build a better and more just society. There would be no greater tragedy for Wales or for Scotland if we did not utilise properly the opportunity of the find in the North Sea for the benefit of Scotland, England and Wales as well.

Question put,
That the salary of the Prime Minister be reduced by half:—

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 300.

Division No. 187.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Benyon, W.
Brooke, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Berry, Hon Anthony
Brotherton, Michael


Alison, Michael
Biffen, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Biggs-Davison, John
Bryan, Sir Paul


Arnold, Tom
Blaker, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Body, Richard
Buck, Antony


Awdry, Daniel
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Budgen, Nick


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Bottomley, Peter
Bulmer, Esmond


Baker, Kenneth
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Burden, F. A.


Banks, Robert
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Bell, Ronald
Bralne, Sir Bernard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Brittan, Lecn
Channon, Paul


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Churchill, W. S.




Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Ht Hon Francis


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Raison, Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
James, David
Rathbone, Tim


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
 Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cordle, John H.
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Reid, George


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhodes James, R.


Crowder, F. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Drayson, Burnaby
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sainsbury, Tim


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Ivan
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Elliott, Sir William
Lawson, Nigel
Scott, Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Ewing. Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Colin


Eyre, Regnald
Lloyd, Ian
Shersby, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Loveridge, John
Silvester, Fred


Fairgrieve, Russell
Luce, Richard
Sims, Roger


Farr, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George


Fell, Anthony
MacCormick, Iain
Skeet, T. H. H.


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh, N)
MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacKay, Andrew James
Spence, John


Forman, Nigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sproat, Iain


Fox, Marcus
Madel, David
Stainton, Keith


Fraser, Rl Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fry, Peter
Marten, Neil
Stanley, John


Galbralth, Hon. T. G. D.
Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mather, Carol
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Maude, Angus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stokes, John


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mawby, Ray
Stradling Thomas, J.


Giyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Peter


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Goodhew, Victor
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Tebbit, Norman


Goodlao, Alastair
Mills, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gorst, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector
Thompson, George


Grieve, Percy
Montgomery, Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D.


Griffiths, Eldon
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Trotter, Neville


Grist, Ian
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Viggers, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wakeham, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison Charles (Devizes)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mudd, David
Wall, Patrick


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Neave, Airey
Walters, Dennis


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neubert, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Hawkins, Paul
Newton, Tony
Watt, Hamish


Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Onslow, Cranley
Wells, John


Henderson, Douglas
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Welsh, Andrew


Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow West)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hicks, Robert
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Richard (Workington)
Wilson, Gorden (Dundee E)


Hodgson, Robin
Parkinson, Cecil
Winterton, Nicholas


Holland, Philip
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Younger, Hon George


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Dafydd Wigley and


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Mr. Douglas Crawford.


Hurd, Douglas






NOES


Abse, Leo
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ashton, Joe


Allaun, Frank
Armstrong, Ernest
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)


Anderson, Donald
Ashley, Jack
Atkinson, Norman







Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Freud, Clement
Maynard, Miss Joan


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Meacher, Michael


Bates, Alf
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Beith, A. J.
George, Bruce
Mendelson, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony (Wedgwood)
Gilbert, Dr John
Mikardo, Ian


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ginsburg, David
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Golding, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Gould, Bryan
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)


Boardman, H.
Graham, Ted
Molloy, William


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moonman, Eric


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Bradley, Tom
Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Newens, Stanley


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Noble, Mike


Buchan, Norman
Hatton, Frank
Oakes, Gordon


Buchanan, Richard
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Ogden, Eric


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
O'Halloran, Michael


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Heffer, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Campbell, Ian
Hooson, Emlyn
Ovenden, John


Canavan, Dennis
Horam, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Padley, Walter


Carmichael, Neil
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Palmer, Arthur


Carter, Ray
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Pardoe, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Huckfield, Les
Park, George


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Parker, John


Castle, Rt Hon. Barbara
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Hunter, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Cohen, Stanley
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Penhaligon, David


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Perry, Ernest


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)


Conlan, Bernard
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Radice, Giles


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Corbett, Robin
John, Brynmor
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cowans, Harry
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Crawshaw, Richard
jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cronin, John
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cryer, Bob
Judd, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Davidson, Arthur
Kilroy-Sllk, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kinnock, Neil
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lambie, David
Rowlands, Ted


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamborn, Harry
Ryman, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamond, James
Sandelson, Neville


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sedgemore, Brian


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Leadbitter, Ted
Selby, Harry


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lee, John
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Doig, Peter
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunlop, John
Loyden, Eddie
Sillars, James


Dunn, James A.
Luard, Evan
Silverman, Julius


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Small, William


Edge, Geoff
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


English, Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Snape, Peter


Ennals, David
McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, Fred (Caerphilty)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stallard, A. W.


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Steel, Rt Hon David


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stott, Roger


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Magee, Bryan
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mahon, Simon
Swain, Thomas


Ford, Ben
Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall. Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)







Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Ward, Michael
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Watkins, David
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Tlerney, Sydney
Watikinson, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Tinn, James
Weetch, Ken
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Tomlinson, John
Weitzman, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Tomney, Frank
Wellbeloved, James
Woodall, Alec


Torney, Tom
White, James (Pollok)
Woof, Robert


Tuck, Raphael
Whitehead, Phillip
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Urwin, T. W.
Whiteock, William
Young, David (Bolton E)


Varley, Rt Hon Erie G.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick



Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Mr. Frank R. White and


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Mr. David Stoddart.


Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Passenger Vehicles (Experimental Areas) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Ashton.]

Orders of the Day — PASSENGER VEHICLES (EXPERIMENTAL AREAS) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLE LICENSING: DESIGNATION OF EXPERIMENTAL AREAS

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, after "State", insert
'after consulting the relevant Traffic Commissioners'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may also discuss Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
'after having consulted the relevant Traffic Commissioners for the area'.

Mr. Fry: In Committee we had a brief discussion of the relationship between the local authority and the traffic commissioners. I have tabled these amendments because I believe that this fairly innocent-sounding piece of legislation denotes a new departure in public transport. It does so because it begins to forge a totally new relationship between the Government and local authorities, whose duties under Sections 2 and 3 of the Local Government Act 1972 are at last being recognised and it is now expected that they will fulfil those responsibilities.
There is another party in this issue, namely the traffic commissioners. When I pressed the Minister in Committee on the future rôle of the traffic commissioners he said:
The general rôle of Traffic Commissioners was considered in the course of our general review of transport policy, and we will make our views on that plain when we publish them. I cannot, therefore, go into that general problem now."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 16th June 1977; c. 85.]

I believe that since, in the interim period, we have had the Government's White Paper on transport policy, it is relevant, before dealing with the final stages of this Bill, to examine where the Government stand with regard to the traffic commissioners and their relationship to local authorities and the Government. In what is in many ways a readable, if somewhat lengthy, document, the Government have said in their White Paper various things which do not take us very much further than the kind of comments that have already been made.
For example, paragraph 147 of the White Paper says,
The licensing system will be modified so as to make it easier for cost-effective local transport arrangements to be introduced.
It says very little more than that at that time.
In paragraph 150 the White Paper goes on to say,
there is already a case for some more general modifications of the licensing law. The Government will now consult widely about proposals for early legislation.
In paragraph 152 the White Paper goes on to say, on the subject of community buses,
they must remain within the jurisdiction of the Traffic Commissioners.
Finally, paragraph 156 states,
The Government proposes also to amend the licensing criteria in section 135 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 so as to provide that the Traffic Commissioners should have regard, in making their decisions, to local authorities' policies and plans for local transport. But … overall responsibility for licensing is best left with them as separate and independent bodies.
I suggest that if the Government mean what they said in those last few words, one must question very seriously indeed how far they intend the present experiments to go, because it is quite clear that only by giving the county councils a very real share in and a very real responsibility for deciding on the kind of routes and the kind of vehicles that can be used for public transport, particularly in rural areas, is there any hope of the alleviation of a problem of which I think the whole House is perfectly well aware.
With respect, I would say that the words of the White Paper are all very laudable but are still somewhat vague. It is time that the Minister came forward


with a somewhat more definitive statement on how he sees the role of the traffic commissioners in the new set-up. I must make it quite clear that, for my part, I happen to feel that the traffic commissioners still have a most useful role to play. I am aware, however, and I am sure that the Minister is aware, that there are very strong feelings on this subject in many parts of the country, and indeed, there are some county councils and many county councillors who would wish totally to sweep away the rôle of the traffic commissioners in any respect in relation to road service licensing.
I do not think that we can possibly pass this measure tonight until we get some indication from the Government as to how they intend to allocate the rôles of themselves, through the Secretary of State, and of the local authorities and the traffic commissioners. I happen to believe that we are perhaps starting to make very fundamental changes in the public transport system. Frankly, the kind of advice and comment that I hoped for in the White Paper is not there. Too much of it is still in the future, yet the problems of rural transport and the problems with which the traffic commissioners are having to deal become every day more urgent.
I am quite well aware that there is to be a certain degree of additional support for rural transport. A figure of £15 million has been mentioned. But the Minister knows as well as I do that this is no more than a stopgap. It will do no more than support the present level of services until more fundamental reforms can take place.
If we are to have a situation in which, through the Bill as it now stands, all county councils can apply to the Secretary of State for experimental areas to be created, we shall have them making their sets of suggestions and we shall have the Secretary of State in the position of deciding whether to allow those experiments to take place, and at present we shall still have the traffic commissioners continuing in their traditional way, making judgments on the same set of criteria that has been established in many areas.
As I drew to the Committee's attention, the kind of criteria that have been set out in the schedule for local authorities to use when considering what kind of experi-

ments to undertake bears a very strong similarity to the criteria that the traffic commissioners are required to use under existing legislation. The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government's attitude. It is all very well to say in Committee that we should wait for the White Paper. The Government must come clean to a greater extent than they have done so far.
I am entirely in favour of this new partnership being created, but there is a danger in the Bill as it stands of there being a degree of uncertainty, particularly about the rôle of the traffic commissioners, if the Government are as firm as they have been. I remind the House of the words in the White Paper:
Overall responsibility for licensing is best left with them as separate and independent bodies".
How does the Minister reconcile this with the kind of experiment that undoubtedly will be asked for and made if the Bill is to have any long-term effect? I look forward with interest to what the Minister says in reply to the amendments.

Mr. Hal Miller: I, too, should like to see clarification about the extent of the traffic commissioners' jurisdiction. Will it be possible under this legislation for local authorities to designate areas in which parents might make arrangements for their children to be conveyed to and from school?
I bring to the attention of the House a case in my constituency where parents attempted to club together to hire a taxi to take their children to school. The case was referred to the traffic commissioners and the parents were refused permission to continue this practice. That case is relevant to the Bill.
Are the traffic commissioners to be consulted about applications of this kind? Would such a scheme be permitted under the Bill? The case to which I referred was within the three-mile limit.
As the House will recall I attempted to pilot through the House a Bill to amend these provisions. Can the Minister say whether in his opinion such use by parents would be allowed whether or not it was within the three-mile limit, or whether the local authority might be allowed on their behalf to make such arrangements over the three-mile limit?

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I support everything that has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller). I want to return to the main point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Welling-borough who asked the Minister for clarification about the rôle of the traffic commissioners.
The whole purpose of the White Paper is to increase the power and influence of the county councils. When he made his statement on the White Paper I asked the Secretary of State about which rôle will prevail. How can we reconcile the increased power of the county councils and the continued r61e of the Commissioners? They are two forces. It is not clear which will prevail.
One can only presume from the Secretary of State's answer that he will back up by legislation the rôle of the county councils. Nevertheless, the commissioners will have the final say. Unless we get some assurance we can only assume that the same old rôe of the traffic commissioners will continue.
One of the things that are absent from the commissioners' criteria is a separate reckoning of public need. I do not have the papers with me, but I know that the traffic commissioners have to consider various criteria, and among them is public need. Public need is not a paramount criterion, and I suggest that it should be. If it were, we should never have had the calamitous occurrence in Oxfordshire recently when the county council had to wait a whole year for a relatively simple decision on something which it wanted to do, to innovate, improve and introduce a scheme much on the lines of the experiments we are now discussing.
I shall not go into the matter at length now, and we may have to return to it later. All I ask the Under-Secretary to give is some idea where the county council stands vis-à-vis the traffic commissioners. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough is after, and that is what I am after, too. If anything, although I tend to agree with my hon. Friend on most transport matters, I am perhaps a little more critical of the traffic commissioners than he is, and, left entirely to myself, I should bear more on the side of the county council. How-

ever, I should be happy to join my hon. Friend if the Under-Secretary would say something about the traffic commissioners giving more weight to what the county councils will have to say. Otherwise, if I may say so, the proposals in the White Paper will be a nonsense.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwel]: As he sees them, what effect does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary think these measures will have on the licensed cab trade? He will be as well aware as I am of the problems which are worrying workers in that trade. Although they support the general idea of diversification of public transport facilities, they are anxious about their existing situation and the proliferation of irresponsible usage of private vehicles, if I may so put it, for public purposes. Could my hon. Friend reply on that?

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I shall gladly reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) if he will bear with me until I have dealt with the more general matters raised by the Opposition.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) when he says that the traffic commissioners have a useful rôle to play. Those were his words, and I heartily endorse them in whatever scenario we view this matter.
One has to distinguish between two situations here. First, there is the situation under the Bill in which experiments take place in particular areas. There the traffic commissioners have one rôle, and I shall come to that. On the other hand, we have the general situation throughout the country, which is largely the matter dealt with in the White Paper. I gather that the hon. Member for Leo-minster (Mr. Temple-Morris) was principally concerned about that.
As regards the general situation, the proposal in the White Paper was that, in reaching their decisions and judgments, the traffic commissioners should take account of local county plans for transport. That was the general point. At present, as hon. Gentlemen know, they take account of a number of matters—the level of fares, the degree of need and factors of that kind. This would be an addition to the considerations which they


have to take into account at present, that they should pay regard to the local transport plan as set out by the county council concerned. That is the only way in respect of their general rôle that the traffic commissioners will be affected.

Mr. Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that at present the traffic commissioners have considerable powers over fares? Does he foresee a situation in which the county council—which, after all, will be asked to pay the bill if subsidy is necessary—can have some say in fares? If things are left as they are, the traffic commissioners can decide who has a road service licence, and they also have a strong say in the fares which people will have to pay and, therefore, on the profitability of the bus company running over a particular route.

Mr. Horam: The situation would remain as it is today, except that in coming to their decision on fares as well as on other matters the commissioners would have to pay regard to the county plans. Plainly, as is stated in the White Paper, this is a matter for consultation. We shall be consulting in due course. In fact, in the next week or two letters will be sent to the county authorities asking for their views on the areas to which it is right to extend the new provisions. That is the general answer to the question of the overall rôle of the commissioners.
Inside that rôle we are talking about particular areas in which the experiments are to take place. In those areas the commissioners will be informally represented on the working groups which will be set up to conduct the experiments. I mentioned this matter in Committee. We thought it right to take account of their experience and advice, but clearly it would be wrong for them to be formally represented on the working groups. There is therefore no uncertainty about their rôle, which is to offer help and advice to local working groups. Nationally, it will be a matter for further consultation on the broad principle set out in the White Paper. I hope that that makes the general position clear.
Taxi-sharing schemes such as the one which constituents of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) wanted to conduct would come within the range of possibilities if a local authority was empowered by the Secretary of State

to conduct an experiment in its area and provided all the necessary authorisations were obtained for it. Schemes are being conducted in the four areas in which there are Government experiments. In those four areas there are one or two examples of taxi-sharing schemes. Certainly they are allowable under the legislation.

Mr. Hal Miller: The Bill refers to a limit of five seats for commercial vehicles, but, with the later amendment, the number of seats for private vehicles not used for other purposes would be 16. Will the hon. Gentleman anticipate the discussion on the amendment and say what numbers of schoolchildren might be carried?

Mr. Horam: The commercial minibus does not come within the scope of the Bill. However, special authorisations could be given for taxis normally carrying three, four or five people. I am looking to see whether there are any taxi-sharing schemes. In fact, there is one. I have a reference here to
hospital transport schemes which may involve hire cars, private cars or minibuses to tackle the problems of people in remote areas who need to get to centralised hospitals in towns to attend clinics",
and so on. That is analogous to the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall, may I say that the Department of Transport is not responsible for the hire cab business. Therefore, I cannot speak with authority on that matter. However, the relaxations of the licensing laws for taxis will apply only in the four areas in which we are conducting experiments. That has always been the case.
The general safeguards for the taxi business—to which I know my hon. Friend attaches importance, as I have in the past and still do—are maintained except in these particular areas where we are relaxing them with the agreement of the cab trade, which is represented on our working parties and has agreed to all this legislation. We are doing it in these cases and in no others. I think that the general situation maintains itself.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough put this forward as a trailer, as it were, to put these particular matters on the rôle of the traffic commissioners. In many respects I should be happy to agree to


his amendments, because obviously we shall certainly consult the traffic commissioners, but, as it happens, they have come rather late in the day. There is, unfortunately, a technical flaw in them, in that they should be attached to subsection (5), where we deal with the people whom the Secretary of State should consult before agreeing to designate an experimental area. They are also somewhat redundant in view of the fact that the Secretary of State now has to agree to an experimental area if the county council wishes to have one, although he retains power to authorise particular schemes. To that extent, therefore, consultation of this kind is slightly redundant.
For these reasons, if the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance, which will be on the record, that we shall certainly consult the traffic commissioners in the experiments which we conduct, I hope that he will feel able now to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Fry: In view of what the Minister has said, I think it probably will be right for me to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I should like to make this final point: if these experiments which are forecast in the Bill are to be meaningful, I still think that some of the questions that my hon. Friends and I have asked will require much more firm and concrete answers than we have received from the Minister tonight.
I am aware that the Government are feeling their own way on this point, but the day will come when a much clearer delineation of the various powers and responsibilities will be required. I am delighted to see that the Minister nods his head. I am glad that the Government realise that this is required.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Horam: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
'The Secretary of State, if requested to do so as regards any such area by the local authority concerned, shall so designate the area in question.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

Mr. Horam: These amendments are concerned with provisions which were inserted into the Bill in Committee by the Opposition and are purely to tidy up the drafting. I said in Committee that I should be happy to accept the amendments dealing with the extension of the period covered by an order designating an experimental area, even though it is perhaps unnecessary, because clearly we would not cut off a promising scheme in its prime. None the less, it is sensible for the Opposition perhaps to build in this point, and I can accept that.
I also undertook to give serious consideration to the amendment concerning the designation of an experimental area at the request of the local authority. I still feel, as I said in Committee, that the provision introduced is in a sense redundant. It has been clear all along that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be prepared to consider designating experimental areas at the request of any local authority concerned which had proposals for experiments which fitted in with the basis on which we are working.
In my view, therefore, these amendments will make no difference in practice to what will happen as a result of the Bill. However, I do not seek to reverse the decision of the Committee. The present amendments, therefore, merely introduce certain minor drafting changes to make it quite clear that a local authority could request an experimental area to be designated only in its own territory—an obvious point but one that we should like to clarify. If any county council wishes to apply its own resources to the conduct of experiments of this kind, to complement our programme, my right hon. Friend would use his powers under the Bill to facilitate this, always providing that the experiments will genuinely add to the evidence that the Government's programme is designed to collect.
As I have explained a number of times already, this is not a Bill to facilitate random patchwork modification of licensing law across the country but to enable certain experiments to be carried out under controlled conditions, to provide hard evidence of the effects of certain modifications of licensing. Against this background I am prepared to accept the provisions.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: As the Minister said, this amendment and this change result not from the will of the Government but from a defeat that they suffered during the Committee stage. From the point of view of the Opposition, the victory was an important one. I believe that it will probably prove to be one of the most important changes in the Bill.
The Minister says that it will not make much difference to his Government's policy. We would agree with him that very little will make much difference to his Government's policy, or lack of policy, in this area.
But the Conservative Opposition consider that what we have here is a change of substance and of very real importance. It was perhaps not the Government's best day when they lost this important vote, but we shall gloss over the circumstances of that morning, because in spite of a great deal of huffing and puffing from the Under-Secretary, the Government had the good grace to accept the will of the Committee.
I believe that the result is significant and important, particularly to those living in country areas. What this amendment has done is to convert the model of the Bill, which the Under-Secretary produced and represented to the House, to something which is of considerably greater importance. What the Undersecretary intended and wanted was a modest little measure confined to four areas of Britain, two in England, one in Wales and one in Scotland. That was the limit of the Government's ambitions, and even then they thought that they were taking an enormous leap into the dark.
The amendment enables not just four experiments but any local authority to run experiments in this country. Let us remember what the Bill allows and what it envisages. The schemes already approved and put forward by the Government include community minibus services, shared cars, postbus services, lifts for payments. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has received an assurance about schemes to help with school transport.
We would have hoped—I say this frankly—that we could go even further in the Bill. We would have liked to

see commercial minibus services allowed as well. It was a disappointment that the Government did not concede that point also, but it came as no surprise considering the Government's stone-walling attiude over the last three and a half years.
At any rate some progress has been made in the Bill and even more progress has now been made because of the amendment. It means that experiments can be run by any county council, by the GLC and by regional councils in Scotland as well. The potential of the change is quite clear and very considerable.
First, it means that county councils which have asked to be allowed to run experiments, and have been refused by the Department of Transport, can now put up proposals again. This means that a county council like Oxfordshire, for example, which had its proposals refused, can now resubmit its plans.
Secondly, it means that other county councils can now turn their attention to running experiments to see what progress can be made, and to see how they should go forward at local level. To that extent, our victory in Committee represents a victory for the local authorities and a victory for the local people.
But one matter should be made clear. By a later clause, the Secretary of State still retains a power of veto. Despite a proposal that is put forward, the Secretary of State can refuse permission for a scheme to go ahead. It needs no great powers of forecasting to see that the potential of the Bill will not be realised under this Government. Indeed, it will not be realised until we have a Conservative Secretary of State for Transport who is dedicated to seeking change and making progress.
A Conservative Government will want to use this Bill to the full, and we shall appreciate and value the advice of all outside expert bodies in this work. But I hope that the Under-Secretary will agree that, in the final analysis, Parliament is sovereign. The aim of an incoming Conservative Government will be to work in the closest consultation with the elected members of local authorities in devising new schemes to help local people solve their own transport problems.
This is a significant Conservative victory. It takes a step along the path


to better transport services for the public. Its greatest benefit will be for the country areas, but it need not necessarily be confined to them. This clause, passed by the Opposition, has now been accepted by the Government. We look forward to operating it to the maximum.

Mr. David Watkins: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in introducing this group of amendments, their effect is to modify the amendment carried by the Opposition in Committee, where they were, as usual, more concerned to embarrass the Government than to amend the Bill constructively. That was the tenor of the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) tonight, as it was so often in Committee.
The Government amendment seems to be a compromise to try to make the best of a bad job. Like all such compromises, it raises queries which are even more serious than the bad job on which it seeks to improve. My hon. Friend said that he felt that there would be no difference in practice. But, although the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to that remark, he also spoke of a later clause containing a power of veto, and it is about that that I want to ask my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield laid great stress on the fact that the effect of the amendment was to extend the powers of the Bill to any local authority, irrespective of whether it covered rural or urban areas. It is clear that the amendment extends powers to non-rural areas and that, if any non-rural local authority makes such a request, the Secretary of State has a mandatory obligation to accede to that request. However, the whole object of the Bill is to deal with transport in rural areas, and it seems contrary to the spirit and intention of the Bill to apply it to urban areas as well.
I want also to express concern about the machinery for consultation, especially in urban areas, with existing licensed operators. My hon. Friend referred earlier to the cab trade, which is represented on the working party and which has a considerable number of other reservations. Although I have no direct contact with the trade, I believe that its representatives have co-operated closely and played a constructive rôle in the formulation of the Bill.
I am disturbed that existing facilities could be damaged owing to lack of consultation, and this is an important side effect of the amendment. The object of the Bill was to improve services in rural areas, and the effect of the amendment will considerably undermine that position by extending these provisions to urban areas. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will clarify the situation. I am concerned that the effect of the amendment will place a mandatory obligation on the Minister to make arrangements in areas which might not necessarily lead to an improvement in the service—and that would be contrary to the spirit and intention of the Bill.

Mr. Roger Moate: It is not always easy to fault any remark made by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), but on this occasion he is in error to a considerable extent. If he says that the Bill is designed primarily for rural areas, he has failed to understand the Bill.
The definition of "local authorities" is set out on page 4 of the Bill as follows
'Local authority'… means, for England and Wales, a county council or the Greater London Council".
One would not normally regard the GLC as being a rural area. Although the term "rural experiments" has been widely used, I submit that the Bill has never been limited to rural areas.
The amendment has drawn attention to the fact that this is a wide-ranging Bill, which is all to the good. But the hon. Gentleman might almost have been talking about a different Bill. He certainly appeared to be talking about a different Committee stage when he suggested that the Opposition were trying to embarrass the Government. He obviously forgot what happened on the morning in Committee when the amendment was passed. The Government could not even provide a quorum. Far from embarrassing the Government, the Opposition after a short delay provided enough Members to allow the Committee to continue. We were being most helpful.

Mr. David Watkins: Is the hon. Gentleman pretending that the Opposition were not waiting outside the Committee room until the last possible minute before entering the Committee?

Mr. Moate: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is the duty of the Government to maintain their business and to see that there is a quorum. He can hardly suggest that we were seeking to embarrass the Government because our efforts kept the Committee going.
The hon. Gentleman then sought to argue that we were tabling a destructive amendment, but since the Government are now accepting our amendment he cannot have it both ways. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to vote against his Government's amendment, or will he accept it? Acceptance by the Minister demonstrates the sheer sound common sense of the amendment that was carried in Committee.
The Minister deliberately underplayed the effect of the amendment. Powers of this kind can mean little, and it depends how they are interpreted. I hope that the amendment, which will allow any county council to apply these provisions in an experimental area, will be taken up enthusiastically by county councils. If that happens, we could start to make a major impact on the problems of rural transport.
Will the Minister say how he sees the amendment applying to county councils? In an earlier reply he said that he had to accept applications from councils. In introducing the amendment, he put forward one or to modifications and said that it was subject to the use of resources and so on. To what extent does he regard this as a mandatory obligation? In what circumstances could he refuse authorisation and under which procedure would that be undertaken.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that such refusals will be rare or will never happen. We want these experiments to get off the ground on a wide scale throughout the country.
11.0 p.m.
Can the Minister confirm also that if a county council decides to submit an application for an experimental area the contact is direct between the county council and the Department of Transport and does not go through the steering committee. Although the steering committee may have to evaluate the results of the experiments, I am sure that it is

right, if we are to get speedy action, that county councils, using their local knowledge of what is needed, should be able to get on with the job and submit the proposals to the Department and obtain a speedy decision.
The steering committee has become so committed to its four areas and its 16 schemes that it might be hesitant about approving many more schemes involving many councils. I hope that the Minister will say that it will be his decision and not the decision of the steering committee and that action can be taken speedily.
Will the Minister comment also on the question of the extension of period. Again he has shown great judgment and has been of assistance to the House in accepting the sensible suggestion that a local authority may apply for the extension of the period of an experiment which seems to be working. As the clause is drafted, it presents two options. The second option is that the Secretary of State can extend the period at the local authority's request. That leaves the first option, which means that the Secretary of State can extend a scheme not at the request of the local authority. I wonder why the Minister foresees the need for such a power. Does he really foresee a situation in which a local authority might not request an extension and he has therefore to impose an extension? That is the only logic I can see in having two alternatives. It is not a fundamental point, but I should be grateful for the Minister's clarification.
Lastly, all these extensions have to be made by order which
shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
As I understand it, every experimental area and every extension of period must be approved by order. If we are to have many experimental areas, we shall have many statutory instruments. This will be very much of a mixed blessing to hon. Members such as myself who serve on the Statutory Instruments Committee. I wonder whether we are right in this instance to have statutory instruments for every experiment and every extension of period. I hope that there will be many experimental areas, but does it make sense to have a separate statutory instrument for each one?

Mr. Fry: I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) refer to the Committee stage and the decision that was taken there. We frequently hear from the Minister and other Labour Members that the Government have a greater interest in promoting rural transport than we have. They had such a great interest in Committee that they could not maintain the necessary quorum. They needed our help to ensure that this puny little Bill got as far as it has. I am astonished that the hon. Member reminded the public of the great interest the Labour Party took in the Bill.
The Minister made a remark which caused me some concern. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he said that he thought that the amendment would make no difference in practice. If he thought that it would make no difference in practice, why did he object to the amendment initially? If it will make no difference in practice, I shall be interested to know, in answer to the questions my hon. Friends have asked, how the Government now intend to interpret the Bill.
The Minister will admit that this was a very modest measure as originally phrased. The great advantage of the amendment moved and accepted in Committee, and now endorsed by this Government amendment, is that it will give a great number of county councils the opportunity to make meaningful experiments.
The Minister either has to say tonight that he does not want a lot of county councils to make meaningful experiments, in which case he has made a nonsense of accepting the intention of the amendment accepted in Committee, or he has to say that he does accept that many county councils will put forward experiments and that he will accept this. There is considerable difference between that and what was in the Bill as originally drafted.
I hope that the Government will not drag their feet, because by their own admission in their own White Paper they have granted a further £15 million to support public transport in rural areas. According to some budgets, that is not a lot of money, but in terms of the rural transport budget it is a large amount,

and it is a measure of the very real crisis in many rural areas today. In putting forward that figure the Government have committed themselves to an ongoing subsidy of considerable proportion to maintain rural transport. With experiments such as those that can be brought about by the Bill, we could find that sum of money reduced in the not-too-distant future.
All of us who are aware of the difficulties of public transport know perfectly well that the loss in rural areas is a flea-bite compared with that in urban and semi-urban areas. Therefore, it is essential in a Bill that proposes to experiment and reduce the cost to the public purse that there should be included the possibility of experiments in urban and semi-urban areas. This is in the interests of the taxpayers and users of public transport, and, far from decrying the fact that we have widened the Bill by the amendments we suggested, I would have thought that hon. Members would congratulate the Opposition on turning the Bill into a more meaningful measure.

Mr. Temple-Morris: If I could add to the good will that flows towards the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), I shall say how much we enjoyed his contribution and his cry on behalf of the urban areas. However, we appreciate that his constituency is mixed; he has a foot in the rural camp and a foot in the urban camp.
This particularly puny Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has described it, is not a menace to the stability of urban areas. As the buses roll in and out at 9 o'clock, 9.10 or 9.15, the provisions of Clause 2(3) will enable owners of private vehicles generally to do what they have done for a long time—pay each other for the privilege of driving to work together. My hon. Friend the Member for Consett—

Mr. Watkins: It is very welcome to see the Opposition taking this interest in urban transport. It is the first time in the proceedings on the Bill that they have spoken with emphasis on this matter. In earlier stages they were concerned only with rural transport.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I ask the hon. Member's forgiveness. Just now I called him my hon. Friend, when I should have


referred to him as the hon. Member. Although he is a friend personally, he is not a friend in the political perspective. He has sought to make a political point, when I was being rather more charitable to him. Urban areas have had quite enough. This is something that benefits rural areas.
Thanks to hon. Members on this side of the House we have carried this amendment which extends the authority that was previously extremely limited. Local authorities up and down the country will have the chance to put forward these experiments. If an urban area wishes to put one forward, good luck to it. The Secretary of State has the ultimate authority and if an urban authority can get within the terms of the Act and do something, good luck to it. But we are concerned with rural areas.
Oxfordshire has been mentioned. Some years ago, at a late hour of the night, I made a plea on behalf of Herefordshire and Worcestershire that the then Undersecretary of State—this was at a time when the Government were setting up experimental areas—should consider Herefordshire and Worcestershire as a posssibility. It would be a great advantage now not only to Oxfordshire but to Herefordshire and Worcestershire, if they wish, to put through an experiment.
I do not want to conduct a political vendetta. I thank the Under-Secretary for his charitable viewing of the amendment that we won in Committee and his acknowledging of the truth. I hope that he will do that whatever the parliamentary situation. I am sure that within the calm that prevails at this hour of the night on Report, he would not maintain or even pretend that the political situation is quite as hot as it was in Committee when he was dealing with accusations of delay, into which I shall not go now. We appreciate that the Labour Government in 1968 did certain things that, frankly, have helped rural areas, but we are dealing with a problem that has since developed and grown more acute. The Conservative Government had the foresight to do something about it in 1973, but that was not adopted. I do not want to go into those matters now. However, I think that we should be treated to the Under-Secretary's words in Committee when dealing with the accusations that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for

Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) when he championed the cause of the Labour Government and Labour Party on transport in rural areas, which no doubt created delight on the Government Benches. The hon. Gentleman said:
Therefore, in bringing forward this Bill—the first to deal with these matters since that time"—
in other words, he was claiming that there was no 1973 Bill; it was since the 1968 Act—
we are building on the sturdy rock of Labour concern for the rural areas on a continuous expression of careful concern."—[Official Re-port, Standing Committee F, I4th June 1977; c. 8.]
I felt it right to remind the Undersecretary of those words and to ask whether he can live up to what he so vividly expressed upstairs.
Local areas—even urban areas, if they wish, although the Bill is not built for them—now have a chance to do something creative. I do not fancy that any problem will be caused by urban areas. We now have a chance to do something, whatever county we may come from or represent. We are grateful that the Minister has given way, but we are conscious that this occasion would not have arisen but for our perspective and determination to push this amendment through in Committee.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), whose interesting remarks in Committee were made on another matter, not that which he raised tonight, was right in thinking that the genesis of the Bill was concern for rural areas.
The Bill came about because the Government thought that there should be experiments with relaxations of the bus licensing law in four areas. Most of the experiments will involve changes and schemes that do not need the Bill. However, to make sure that everything could be considered, we brought forward the Bill to allow that to be done. We felt that if we made no distinction between urban and rural areas, we could in future, if necessary, look at the problems of suburban as well as urban areas under the provisions of the Bill.
The first thought on the Bill arose from the desire for a fresh approach to the problems of the rural areas, and that


is probably how my hon. Friend has fixed so clearly in his mind the thought that the Bill was about rural areas. None the less, it does not specifically limit the changes to rural areas.

Mr. Robert Adley: Will the Minister assure the House, in view of what he said, that at no time will the Secretary of State seek to interpret Clause 2(6) in an unfavourable light merely because it might happen to relate to an urban rather than to a rural area?

Mr. Horam: As I shall make plain later, our sole consideration in these matters should be that the experiments which are put forward by any authority, whether in a rural, urban or suburban area, are genuinely adding to the evidence that the Government programme is designed to collect, as well as taking account of factors such as the resources available for this sort of experiment. We shall have this broad consideration in mind and we would not necessarily make any distinction between urban and rural. But I agree with the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) that it is in the rural areas that the most pressing need for such experiments clearly exists. We should therefore probably give them priority, but I do not think that it is necessary to make a distinction—and the Bill does not seek to do so—between the urban and rural areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Consett asked what consultations there would be with the public transport operators. As I have explained, the Bill came about because the steering committee which was controlling our experiments in the four selected areas felt that it was necessary. That committee is composed of representatives of the bus operators, the bus workers' trade unions, the taxi trade, users' committees, district and county councils, and all the various interests which might be relevant to local transport.
I am sure, therefore, that a good criterion for an experiment, other than the four experiments we have set up, would be that consultation of that kind should be built into it. It is essential for the success of a scheme for all interests to

be fully consulted and my hon. Friend may be assured therefore in that respect.
My hon. Friend asked where in the Bill was the veto on schemes that were thought to be undesirable. It is in Clause 2 (6), by which any authorisation must receive the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport. There have always been two filters through which schemes must pass. The first is the designation of an experimental area. The second is the authorisation granted by the Secretary of State for any proposal within an experimental area. This could be, for example, that a particular route should be run by a bus on flexible timing, picking up at request points. We should consider such a scheme, and if it were thought right we should agree to it.
My point in considering the exaggerated remarks of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), who has claimed a great deal more for the Conservative amendment passed in Committee than he is legitimately entitled to claim, is that we have always been prepared to accept experiments which were sensible and met our criteria. The amendment does not alter in one whit our power to do that because we still have the power to deny authorisation to schemes which we think are wrong in principle or undesirable in effect. That power remains.
Therefore, there is no real change in the Bill. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield may huff and puff a great deal about this achievement, but at the end of the day the success of the experiments will simply depend on the enthusiasm of the people trying to run the schemes—whether local councils, operators or whoever else—and upon the common sense of the schemes. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that it would be radically different when a Tory Government came to office—if a Tory Government ever do. Indeed, things would be different if that Government decided to go for less sensible schemes than ours, but I shall not comment on that. We should certainly be prepared to accept any sensible schemes that met our criteria. That has always been the case.
I said to the hon. Member for Welling-borough (Mr. Fry)—who has left the Chamber temporarily—that originally I objected to the amendment because it was not necessary. I still consider it to be unnecessary, but in a spirit of harmony I


am prepared to accept the amendment on this occasion, although it does not make any change at all in the Bill.
That is a perfectly sensible position. We shall see what happens and what is brought forward under any Government, Labour or Tory, in the nature of suggestions for further experiments. We shall consider suggestions on their merits as we have always been prepared to do. That also answers the question of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). These will be the criteria on which we shall look at schemes—simply whether they are practical, whether they will be rewarding and whether they will give the sort of hard evidence that our four schemes are designed to produce. Such evidence will be generally useful to local authorities wishing to mount schemes of their own and to make changes of their own.
The hon. Member for Faversham also asked whether I thought it desirable that these orders should come to the House as Statutory Instruments for each experimental area. That is a matter of procedure, and I am sure that we should have been criticised in the reverse way had we not done this. The hon. Member for Faversham knows that these matters are sometimes contentious. The Government are sometimes accused of being over-solicitous in the interests of the House. More often we are accused of being neglectful. Perhaps we have been over-solicitous in this respect, but the House cannot criticise us for that.
A point was made about alternatives for the extension of the period of the schemes—at the behest of the Secretary of State or of the local authority. That is simply building on the amendment that was passed in Committee and there is no change. In practice it will simply be a matter of mutual agreement. Under our schemes the local authorities will be represented on the local committees and if it is thought desirable for a scheme to go beyond two years I am sure that that will be a matter for general consent in the committee or otherwise and that a decision will be made accordingly. In practice, there is not much difference between the two approaches. I am sure that that covers the points that the Opposition have raised.
The hon. Member for Leominster made a final flourish in talking about the sturdy rock of Labour concern for rural transport which I mentioned. Indeed, that is our position, because if one looks at the history of the changes in bus licensing that have been made by successive Governments one finds that the only changes of substance have been made by Labour Governments. Changes have been made most recently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and now by this Government in promoting and helping along matters by way of a Private Member's Bill, the Bill relates to the minibus, and now by this Bill, which is merely a part of our total approach. The positive achievements have been made by this Government. The rhetoric, the ideology, the lack of reality, the to-ing and fro-ing—

Mr. Norman Fowler: Before the Minister goes into orbit, will he say frankly whether he believes that it was right, given what the Government have said in the White Paper, for them to kill the reforms in the 1973 Bill which the Conservative Government left behind.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I am not able to follow how that could possibly come within the terms of this amendment.

Mr. Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that my remarks arose directly from the Minister's remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If I did not hear what I should have heard when the Minister was speaking it does not make what the hon. Gentleman was saying any more in order.

Mr. Horam: Opposition Members should not tempt me to go down these paths of rhetoric. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield having been called to order, perhaps we should exercise more discretion. I believe that the success of the experiments and the success of the Government's approach to experimentation will depend on the nature of the schemes put forward and the common sense with which the general willingness to experiment is expressed.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 1, line 22, after "State", insert—
(a)'.

No. 5, in page 1, line 24, after "effect", insert—
'; and
(b) if requested by the local authority whose area is or contains the experimental area designated by such an order to extend or further extend the period for which the order is to have effect, shall so extend or further extend that period accordingly.'.

No. 6, in page 2, leave out lines 3 and 4.—[Mr. Horam.]

Clause 2

POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN RELATION TO EXPERIMENTAL AREAS

Mr. Horam: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 36, leave out "twelve" and insert "sixteen".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also discuss Government Amendment No. 9.

Mr. Horam: In Committee I gave an undertaking that I would introduce amendments in the same spirit as an Opposition amendment designed to increase the maximum seating capacity of private vehicles covered by the Bill. The Opposition amendment was technically defective and was withdrawn. As my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) said in Committee, minibuses with larger seating capacities than 12 are now readily available. It was said by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that it was right that private vehicles of this kind should be covered by the Bill. In moving the amendment in Committee, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) noted that the same point had been raised on the Minibus Bill. It would be in the interests of clarity and consistency if the maximum number of passengers were increased to 16.

Mr. Norman Fowler: This is a change which resulted from another sensible and far-reaching proposal made by the Opposition in Committee and which the Government have had no alternative but to accept. We congratulate them on their good sense.

Mr. Moate: I wish to ask the Minister about the difference between the

figure 16 referred to in Amendment No. 7, and the number of less than 16 referred to in Amendment No. 9. Am I not right in saying that in one instance we are referring to a number less than 16, which can only mean 15, whereas in the other instance we are talking about a figure 16? Can the Minister explain this?

Mr. Horam: The difference can be explained if I say that by inserting the two separate provisions, one for a vehicle with the maximum size permitted, which is 16 passengers and a driver, and the other for a smaller vehicle, we can conduct some experiments which relate only to a vehicle with 16 passengers—that is, experiments relating only to vehicles of that size—without simultaneously giving the right to experiment with vehicles smaller than that. Equally, we can grant experiments for vehicles—a taxi, for instance, or a private car—which may be smaller than the maximum size permitted. It is simply that, and no more. In this way, it enables us to distinguish between two different types of experiment, which gives flexibility to the sort of scheme that we have in mind.

I hope that that explains the point to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Moate: Not at all.

Amendment agreed to.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Horam: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 39, leave out from 'to' to end of line 40 and insert
'such one or more private vehicles or commercial vehicles as may be specified in the authorisation'.
In Committee on 16th June, the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said in relation to this subsection that it would
be helpful to know whether the word 'specified' is intended to apply to commercial vehicles."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 16th June 1977; c. 64.]
That was the intention. The present amendment seeks to make it clear beyond any doubt.

Mr. Adley: The Minister was perhaps hoping that the extreme brevity of his remarks would clear up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and a number of us in Committee, but I do not think that he has cleared up the point this evening. I hope that he will take it in the right


spirit if I say that I think that the Government must make the position a deal clearer than it is now.
The Bill makes frequent reference to public vehicles, private vehicles and commercial vehicles. However, having discussed the Bill as presently drafted—as I have had a chance to do now—with, for example, the chief executive of Dorset County Council, I find that he is not at all clear, as I am not, precisely what the Government intend and how they intend to interpret the Bill in its use of the word "private". Does the Minister mean that "private vehicle" is private in relation of "public", or does he mean private in relation to commercial"? There is a significant difference of interpretation.
The Government amendments were not available until the end of last week, and that has put a number of us in considerable difficulty. Clearly, in a complex, albeit brief, piece of transport legislation, one seeks, certainly on the Opposition side of the House, to consult the people who will be called upon to operate the legislation. When I went to Dorchester on Friday to see the chairman of the county council in whose area much of my constituency lies, the chief executive of the Dorset County Council, Mr. Kenneth Abel, raised a number of questions with me, particularly in relation to the buses that are actually owned by the Dorset County Council.
I confess that this was not a point that had occurred to the Opposition, and I do not think that it had occurred to the Government. A number of local authorities, as defined by the Bill, actually own their own vehicles, and additionally, a number of local authorities are operating bus services on vehicles which are owned by private operators but which are under contract to the county councils.
Therefore, I want to quote the letter that the chief executive of the Dorset County Council has written to me, which I received this morning, in relation to the question of private vehicles and public service vehicles. Mr. Abel says,
Under existing legislation, the County Council are not able to use their fleet of school buses to pick up fare paying passengers and the buses which operate under contract to the Council for school purposes can only do so under a permit system by the Traffic Commissioners.
It is the policy of the Council to use public transport to take the children to and from

school and their own vehicles are only used in those areas where no public transport exists and this is generally in the more isolated areas of the County. When there is spare capacity on these vehicles this could be used to take people to and from villages and hamlets to the nearest public service route, if not to the nearest town, and the suggested amendment to the Bill would permit Councils to do this.
The suggested amendment was Amendment No. 13, which is not selected. The Government were so dilatory in producing their amendments that this was tabled too late. The letter continues:
Obviously the Council would not seek to set up in opposition to existing bus operators, many of whom are in receipt of revenue support from the County Council and District Councils. However, if the Council were authorised to carry fare paying passengers on their own vehicles and likewise the contract vehicles, it would be hoped that restrictions would not be imposed in the legislation limiting the Council's discretion.
As we are not able to move Amendment No. 13, I ask the Government whether they have taken on board the position of county councils that own and, or, operate their own buses. If that has not been given specific consideration, does the Minister think that Amendment No. 13 could be considered in another place? I understand that that would be proce-durally possible. I should be grateful if the Minister could consider that. I am sure that Dorset County Council is not the only council that will be confronted with the problem of interpretation when they put forward transport experiments.
On Second Reading the Minister said:
Where a vehicle is used in compliance with an authorisation, it will be treated as not being a public service vehicle. It will fall outside the public service vehicle provisions."—[Official Report, 27th April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 1419.]
Dorset County Council buses are not public service vehicles. Under the Bill as drafted, will the council be able to apply for an transport experiment enabling it to charge fares on school buses that the Council owns or on buses that are under contract to it, in order to fill empty seats? If the council is unable to charge passengers for the use of school buses when there are empty places that could be filled, that is a waste of resources.
The Minister should concentrate on that proposition, if he is concerned with the use of resources, rather than on dogma. It would be a valuable use of resources if county councils were allowed


to use these buses and to sell seats to the public.
The Minister has not yet answered another question which is relevant to the amendment and which concerns the limousine service. In Committee I asked him about it and I have written to him since then. If a county council were to put forward a proposal for an airport limousine service of the type that I described in Committee, would it be authorised to operate such a service, provided that the vehicle fitted at least one of the descriptions in the Bill? I realise that the Minister might find it difficult to interpret the Bill. There is more scope for the private vehicle than for the public vehicle or bus. That negates the point of the amendment that the Opposition moved in Committee.
The Minister said at another stage:
I do not understand the difference between a commercial big bus and a commercial minibus, service, apart from the size of the bus."—[Official Report, 27th April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 1452–3.]
It is the size of the bus or size of the passenger-carrying vehicle that we are discussing, so I feel that it is not unfair to press the Minister now to answer the question which I have asked on four separate occasions, on Second Reading, in Committee and in correspondence. Does he feel that a county council which put forward a proposal for a limousine-type service would be in order under the Bill as it stands?
If the hon. Gentleman is unwilling or unable to answer tonight, will he say that, when the Bill goes back to another place, the Government spokesman there will give a precise answer? It is one of the questions which will be asked and, sooner or later, either the Government will have to answer or the courts will have to decide. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is better that the Government's attitude on specific questions such as this should be made known now and that legislation drafted rather sloppily, as this has been in parts, should not be left to the courts for interpretation.

Mr. Moate: The Under-Secretary pointed out that the object of the amendment is to tighten matters up and to close a possible loophole to which I drew attention in Committee I think that it probably achieves that objective, but I

now have some regret at the Minister's apparent success. It will be recalled that the original point was made during a discussion on whether we should extend the Bill to allow the use of commercial minibuses or commercial buses generally. Like so many of his colleagues, the Minister threw up his hands in horror at the prospect of ramshackle pirate buses charging about the countryside competing for the custom of people in the rural areas. This spectre of the 1930s, as he saw it, terrified him although it would gladden the hearts of rural people to see buses rushing up to collect them.
I pointed out to the Minister that as far as I could see, he had powers to prevent that sort of thing happening. First, he had the power to refuse authorisations, and, second, there was the power to reject applications because he could specify certain vehicles, He could certainly specify private cars. But it was not clear that he could specify vehicles to which the special authorisation should attach. It was only in that context that I made the point. The Minister now makes it clear that he will authorise specific vehicles. A special authorisation will attach to a specified commercial vehicle.
As we do not have the general power for commercial vehicles, I would rather that we had a slightly wider Bill and that the Minister did not have the power to specify the individual commercial vehicles, because it seems to me that it would be desirable for a wider power to be introduced to allow such as the school bus operations, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lym-ington (Mr. Adley) referred. In those circumstances, one would not wish to specify each and every commercial vehicle. Nevertheless, I recognise that the Government amendment is in line with the rather restrictive fearful philosophy expressed in the Bill, so perhaps in that context it makes sense.
May we have one matter clarified? The amendment uses these words:
such one or more private vehicles or commercial vehicles as may be specified in the authorisation".
The word "may" may mean different things in different contexts. Perhaps it is permissive, meaning that the commercial vehicles do not have to be specified. It could be argued that the amendment says


that the council may specify the commercial vehicle or vehicles if it wishes. On the other hand, it might be interpreted as meaning that they have to be specified, in the sense of
such commercial vehicles as are specified".
I think that it may not be quite as tight as the Minister intends it to be.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I appreciate that this is a tidying-up amendment, and I wish only to add my voice to what has already been said by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Christ-church and Lymington (Mr. Adley) spoke of the problems of Dorset County Council, with which he took the trouble to get in touch over the weekend, and he said that other county councils might have been affected in the same way. Hereford and Worcester County Council is affected in the same way.
In the past, at Question Time, I have said that in rural transport there should be co-ordination and the best possible use of whatever transport is available. Here we have—and I appreciate that it is better put in the starred amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Christ-church and Lymington—a logical opportunity to fit in anything worthy of the word "experiment". Throughout the stages of the Bill there has been a shyness about the words "private enterprise" which does not seem to take account of the essential feature of experiments in rural transport. Unless we can join up the services available from private and public transport without any doctrinaire or dogmatic ideas, the experiment will not do the job for the people which it should be.
11.45 p.m.
That is the major failing of the legislation. We have conquered, fortunately—and I use that expression deliberately—one failing of the legislation. Another sad failing is the limited definition of "commercial vehicle".

Mr. Adley: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to be antagonistic towards the Government, but if he reads Amendment No. 13 he will see that there is no question of the Government having to follow any dogmatic ideas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Amendment No. 13 has not been selected.

Mr. Adley: I am well aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am not seeking to move it. I am merely referring to it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will refer to it very briefly.

Mr. Adley: Yes. The amendment refers to buses and services owned and operated by the county council. There is no question of private enterprise being called into play.

Mr. Temple-Morris: My hon. Friend, as always, is very helpful in drawing attention to his amendment without moving it. His amendment is a model of political moderation and patience, and I wish that we could have had the chance to discuss it.

Mr. Horam: The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) has had his fill by smuggling Amendment No. 13 into this discussion. I appreciate that the reason may be that our amendments may have been tabled late. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he feels that he did not have sufficient time to consult about them before speaking tonight. None the less, it was useful that he was able to mention Amendment No. 13, because he made a valuable point.
School buses with up to 16 passenger seats owned by local education authorities would come within the scope of the Bill under special authorisations, as they are not used for carrying passengers for hire or reward in the course of a passenger transport business and thus are private vehicles in terms of the Bill. Under such authorisations they could be enabled to offer seats to fare-paying passengers. Vehicles with more than 16 passenger seats might be eligible for a permit under Section 30 of the Transport Act 1968. What I am saying to the hon. Gentleman is that if the vehicles in Dorset about which he is talking are minibuses, they would come within the Bill.

Mr. Adley: These are, in fact, ordinary double-decker buses purchased by the Dorset County Council. They would not at the moment come within the Bill. Will the Minister consider tabling a Government amendment in another place to give effect to the amendment to which I must not refer, to allow county councils, as the local authorities referred to in the


Bill, to carry out the services which I suggested?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister will be well aware of the fact that Amendment No. 13 was not selected.

Mr. Horam: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. The kind of bus about which the hon. Gentleman was talking could anyway carry fare-paying passengers under Section 30 of the Transport Act 1968. All the situations are covered and we do not need further amendments to the Bill. Airport limousines, if they have more than five seats, would not come under the Bill. If smaller than five seats, they would.
The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked about the use of the word "may". This is a matter of normal, simple, legal drafting. We are in no doubt about its meaning. It is too late in the day to do anything about it.

Mr. Moate: Does "may" mean "must"?

Mr. Horam: In effect, it means "will".
I had better not be dragged once again down the rosy path of private enterprise which the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) invited me to tread.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 4, line 9, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'sixteen'.—[Mr. Horam.]

Schedule

AUTHORISATIONS UNDER SECTION 2

Mr. Horam: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 15, at end insert—
'(2) Paragraph 13 below applies in relation to the grant of a special authorisation.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 11 and Government Amendment No. 12, in page 7, line 32, leave out from 'give' to 'passing' in line 34 and insert
'the appropriate notice in one or more relevant newspapers; and where a local authority intend to revoke a special authorisation they shall also give the appropriate notice in writing to every district council, London borough council, parish council and, in Scotland or Wales, community council who will in the opinion of the local authority be affected by the revocation of the authorisation.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "the appropriate notice" means—

(a) not less than 21 days notice of intention to consider a resolution or grant a special authorisation; and
(b) not less than 56 days notice of intention to revoke a special authorisation.

(3) Before '.
We may also take Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 12, after third 'council', insert 'neighbourhood council '; and Amendment (b) to Amendment No. 12, leave out 'will' and insert 'may'.

Mr. Horam: During the Committee proceedings on 16th June I accepted in principle Opposition amendments on similar lines to those which I now propose, with the proviso that the drafting be looked at. The present amendments reflect, I am sure, the spirit of what I accepted in Committee, namely, that longer notice be given in the case of revocation of a special authorisation, and that positive steps be taken to bring a proposal for such a revocation directly to the notice of local councils affected.

Mr. Adley: I gather that, although my amendments (a) and (b) were tabled at the same time as the amendment which we were not allowed to discuss previously, in this instance, because of the wonderful ways in which this place operates, the amendments have been selected and I am able to discuss them.
I first thank the Minister for abiding by the assurances which he gave to us in Committee, that he would table suitable amendments to take account of the proposal that we put, particularly the important one that there should be a period of 56 days before any service which has been started could be revoked.
Amendments (a) and (b) are minor drafting amendments which I hope the Minister will agree to. I am sure that the omission of the phrase "neighbourhood councils" is not a malicious omission on the part of the Government. The Minister is aware that following the 1972 Local Government Act, which I do not want to discuss because it makes me feel ill, neighbourhood councils were established in certain areas and were part of the "publicly elected councils" which was the phrase used in the Opposition amendment that was moved in Committee.
I would be grateful if the Minister would accept Amendment (a) because there is nothing malicious or hidden in it. It merely seeks to include all those publicly elected local authorities that it was our intention to include when we moved the amendment in Committee, which the Minister accepted in principle and said he was prepared to redraft himself.
The second very minor point concerns the use of the word "may" instead of "will". I have no wish to be difficult on this point. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that the degree of influence of a local authority is not something that can always be laid down in hard and fast terms. I think the use of the word "may" is more appropriate than the word "will". I hope that the Minister will accept Amendments (a) and (b) to the Government amendment.

Mr. Horam: I would comment on the two proposed amendments which I am glad we have had the opportunity to debate. With regard to the first, we are, of course, extending the powers of parish councils which are the statutory bodies that we shall consult. In accordance with the Local Government Act, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, most areas can constitute parish councils if they so wish. We feel that that is the appropriate body.
Neighbourhood councils, I am afraid, do not always form themselves in the same way. Some follow a proper system of election and others are less formally constituted. We feel that neighbourhood councils would not necessarily be a representative of an area as the other bodies that we shall consult, like parish councils.
I therefore hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will agree that in setting the limits as widely as we have—right down to the parish council, which we feel is the appropriate body—we are doing as much as we sensibly can. To add neighbourhood councils to the number of bodies which it is suggested should be consulted would be to add another not necessarily representative group in the community when we already have other properly and formally elected bodies to consult.

Mr. Adley: With respect, I do not think the Minister is aware of what he is saying. Neighbourhood councils were set up under the 1972 Local Government

Act in areas where there were no parish councils. In my own constituency neighbourhood councils were set up under the 1972 Local Government Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is able to make only one speech on this amendment. Is he asking the Minister a question or is he endeavouring to make a second speech?

Mr. Adley: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are being rather harsh. This is an important point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am only the servant of the House and unless the rules are changed that is the situation in which I find myself.

Mr. Adley: I am putting a question, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister may have resumed his seat and so is not available for further questions anyway.

Mr. Adley: I am putting a question to the Minister. Is he aware that neighbourhood councils, as referred to in the amendment, are properly constituted elected public authorities under the 1972 Local Government Act in areas where there are no parish councils? The hon. Gentleman gave an assurance in Committee. He is not abiding by the spirit of that assurance if he does not allow the inclusion of neighbourhood councils where there are no parish councils. That applies to a few areas which were formerly borough councils in part-rural and part-urban areas, of which a small but not insignificant number were created by the 1972 Act. There is nothing untoward about this.

12 midnight

Mr. Horam: I am not suggesting that there is anything untoward about it. All that I am saying is that, as the term at present exists, neighbourhood councils can cover a heterogenous group of organisations, some properly elected and others not. Therefore, at the moment I feel that it would not be right to include neighbourhood councils in the scope of the Bill. Nevertheless, I recognise that there is considerable movement towards statutory neighbourhood councils. If legislation to this effect is passed, it would be appropriate to add neighbourhood councils to the Bill. But, at the moment, I feel that it would not. In view of that,


I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
As for his second amendment, Amendment (b), I am quite happy to accept the change of wording which he recommends. I hope that he will be happy with that, too.

Mr. Moate: I do not want to get too involved in drafting technicalities at this stage, but I wish to ask the Minister for some assurance on a couple of matters.
It is difficult to follow, in drafting terms, the precise results of the two principal amendments, Nos. 10 and 12. In the case of Amendment No. 12, the Minister has all the drafting expertise available to him, and I suspect that on balance he is right. But I think that it would repay further study.
Amendment No. 10 seeks to insert a sub-paragraph (2). In drafting terms, I presume that the earlier provisions will automatically become sub-paragraph (1), but, if we leave matters as they are and agree to Amendment No. 10, we shall have a sub-paragraph (2) but no sub-paragraph (1).
Assuming that that is taken care of in some other way, we are then advised that paragraph 13 applies to this paragraph. Why is that necessary? Paragraph 13 is a general provision with clear general effect over the whole Bill. Why is it necessary to add a further statement that paragraph 13 applies to this paragraph?
Paragraph 13 refers to resolutions passed by a local authority in pursuance of paragraph 2, 3 or 10, but not in pursuance of paragraph 5. If we are making paragraph 5 subject to the provisions of paragraph 13, resolutions of a local authority passed under paragraph 13 should also refer back to paragraph 5.
With the acceptance of Amendment No. 12, matters become rather complex. We seem to be introducing two new sub-paragraphs, (2) and (3). However, we already have a sub-paragraph (2). I hope that it will be checked to ensure that it is correct before the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Horam: I shall check that the amendments as drafted are correct.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 7, line 12, leave out from 'to' to end of line 13 and insert—
'the revocation of a genera) authorisation or special authorisation'.—[Mr. Horam.]

Amendment proposed: No. 12, in page 7, line 32, leave out from 'give' to 'passing' in line 34 and insert
'the appropriate notice in one or more relevant newspapers; and where a local authority intend to revoke a special authorisation they shall also give the appropriate notice in writing to every district council, London borough council, parish council and, in Scotland or Wales, community council who will in the opinion of the local authority be affected by the revocation of the authorisation.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "the appropriate notice" means—

(a) not less than 21 days notice of intention to consider a resolution or grant a special authorisation; and
(b) not less than 56 days notice of intention to revoke a special authorisation.

(3) Before'.—[Mr Horam.]

Amendment to the proposed amendment made: (b) leave out 'will' and insert 'may'.—[Mr. Adley.]

Proposed amendment, as amended, agreed to.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Horam: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a fairly long debate on the remaining amendments to the Bill, which also had a reasonably lengthy discussion in Committee.
In introducing the Bill, I described it as a limited Bill with a particular aim. The aim is to facilitate a series of controlled experiments in rural transport in the first instance. Many of the experiments which we want to undertake could be done without the aid of this Bill. But the steering committee, which sets up and monitors the experiments, felt that it wanted clear ground, with no restrictions, on which to analyse and experiment as it felt fit. Therefore, to give it this scope we agreed to the steering committee's request that this Bill be brought forward. I hope that it will enable experiments to go ahead in a clear and systematic way which will yield valuable results.
It is quite another thing, however, to talk about general changes in the licensing law. That will be the subject of separate legislation foreshadowed in the White


Paper on transport policy on which we are now about to begin a process of consultation, and which I hope in due course will be debated in the House.

Mr. Norman Fowler: When?

Mr. Horam: That is quite a separate matter which is not within my ambit, but I hope that will occur as soon as we can manage it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I have said that we are anxious to have more discussion in the House on transport matters—more than we have had in the last few years.
Within the ambit of our approach to rural transport problems, this Bill is a small piece of legislation. Indeed, it is a piece of a piece. It only facilitates experiments, and the experiments themselves are only a small part of our whole approach. It is, as it were, a sub-clause within a clause. It is not something on which we would rely as our major proposal. When the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) claims, as occasionally he does, that that is our intention, it is apparent that he is on a mistaken hypothesis.
The Committee cleared many of these points in its discussion and we believe that the Bill will now reflect the views of the Committee. This evening 11 amendments have been accepted and they all reflect the various strands of opinion in Committee both collectively by the Opposition and also by individual hon. Members. On the whole we can feel that the Bill now genuinely reflects the views of the Committee. Nevertheless, despite the changes that have been made, the principle of the Bill, and I am sure its practice, remain substantially unaltered from our original intention, namely that we should have controlled experiments which will yield us hard evidence on what is happening on the ground floor in rural transport.
Hard evidence has been sorely lacking, despite the many words that have been spoken from the Government Benches and from the Opposition Benches. I hope that our task now is clear-cut. Having obtained the Bill tonight, as I hope that we shall, we shall go ahead as fast as possible, make a reality of the experiments, and obtain meaningful results that will provide a basis for future legislation and future practice in a way

that will help all those living in rural areas.
In those terms, I commend the Bill to the House.

12.11 a.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The Undersecretary was not full of enthusiasm about the Bill, nor did we hear from him many flowing phrases of the type to which we are accustomed from him.
The context of the Bill is the Government's effort, if such it can be called, to improve rural transport. The Bill started life as a modest mouse of a Bill and now, because of the changes we have brought about to it, it is something a little more than that and with an incoming Conservative Government will be considerably more.
Since we last considered the Bill, however, there has been a development which some of us at least believed would never happen. The Government have published their White Paper on Transport Policy. It has not received an altogether entirely ecstatic reception from the Press. A fairly typical response was that of the New Statesman, which said:
Frankly, no one expected Mr. Rodgers to inherit the whole body of Crosland's principles, still less to adhere unswervingly to the pledges made in the transport section of the Manifesto on which Labour won the election of October 1974. The title of the Manifesto Group was never much more than a catch-phrase; and, to be fair, election promises often have to be moderated in the light of political realities. Yet there is a point beyond which intelligent adaptation becomes sell-out and flexible development becomes cynical disregard of the Labour movement's purposes. Labour has been led into a major betrayal.
Despite all the furtive briefings conducted by the Minister before the House of Commons saw the White Paper, the Press was not on the side of the Government.
Of particular relevance to the debate and to the Bill is the Government's statement in the White Paper. As the Undersecretary said, the Bill is concerned essentially with improving rural transport. We have sought to amend and extend it so that it will cover areas, or could be made to extend to other areas, apart from country areas. We believe that its major work, at least initially, will be in rural areas.
The White Paper says, that there are many places where so few people want to use existing public transport services


that it does not make sense to attempt to continue to meet their needs by a normal bus service with professional drivers driving buses on fixed routes and with fixed stops. As a result, says the White Paper, the licensing system will be modified so as to make it easier for cost-effective local transport arrangements to be introduced. There we have it. It is the transport U-turn of all time.
For the last three-and-a-half years the Government have been arguing that there is no case for reforming the licensing system. They claimed that we Conservatives had been overstating the case, and that we were far too ambitious in proposing changes. These, after all, were the same people who killed the changes in the 1973 Bill prepared by a Conservative Government. We have a situation in which the last three-and-a-half years have been wasted in rural transport, as in many other areas.
Looking back, transport historians will make two comments about this period. The first comment will be on the delay. In three-and-a-half years the Government have done next to nothing to improve rural transport in this country. This Bill to which we are giving a Third Reading tonight, is their only contribution to date. The experiment now possible under this Bill is only possible because of a Conservative amendment.
The major legislation of the period is the Minibus Bill, and although no tribute was paid to it in the White Paper, that was not a piece of Government legislation. It was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt). In these wasted three-and-a-half years the Government could have used the time to develop new transport services for the public. But they have thrown that opportunity away, and the losers have been the public.
The second comment that will be made is that in the dying months of this Government, Labour has at least accepted the case for reform of licensing. The Government will not have time to do much, but at least they have accepted the principle, and the significance of that is that they have accepted our case for change. That means that at the end of this Bill tonight, when it receives a Third Reading there will no longer be any need to argue whether reform is necessary. The

Government, in an act of death-bed repentance, have conceded that reform is necessary.
The only argument now is about the extent of that reform. Only an incurable optimist would expect much from this Government whose transport policy up to now has been a mixture of lethargy and failure. It is a transport policy that has been spurned by many Members of the Labour Party, who regard it as a sellout and a betrayal.
The significance of this Bill, together with the White Paper, is not in what its authors intended but in the opportunity it presents to a new Government. The White Paper gives us our case on the reform of the licensing system, and the Bill allows experiments throughout the country. What we now need is a new Government to grasp the exciting opportunities presented to us.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Moate: As we now come to the Third Reading, I think that we can say once again that this is a pretty poor thing before us. Nevertheless it is a little better than it was when it started. While it is a feeble Bill, it offers two opportunities. The first opportunity is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) pointed out, for a new Government to build on to this and to repair some of the omissions that have been so evident throughout the proceedings.
The other opportunity exists now. It is available to county councils throughout the country to introduce wide-ranging experiments. The Bill, as it was when it started on its way, would not have permitted that in any way. It was then limited, and it is now much wider. I hope that county councils will take advantage of this opportunity. I hope that they get the message, understand the scope of the Bill, seize this opportunity and press substantial schemes on the Minister soon.
Personally, I doubt the value of limited experiments. I believe that there is a wide variety of needs throughout the country from one locality to another. It is of doubtful value to produce information from one locality and believe that it is universally applicable throughout the United Kingdom. If I am right in that, it follows that we need greater variety of local experiments and schemes.


It is a significant achievement. We started with 16 puny experiments and now we can have many experiments.
I should now like to make some nice comments about the Under-Secretary. Generally speaking, I think that he has been more sinned against than sinning. After all, he has been in his present office for only a short time. We cannot blame him for the three and a half wasted years of Labour Government. That is what we have had, but it is not his fault. He is desperately trying to tidy up some of the mess left by his predecessors.
Generally, the Under-Secretary has been most helpful and courteous. It is a pity to waste compliments when the hon. Gentleman is not listening. I said that he had been most helpful to us in Committee, though I feel that he was limited by constraints not of his making. What concerns me is that the Government are constrained and will be constrained from reforming the licensing system by the shackles of an inherited burden of nearly 50 years of licensing restrictions and trade union interests—I do not decry those interests, because the trade unions are performing a legitimate job and they must be kept in perspective—and by the interests of conventional bus operators.
Throughout we have been dominated by these constraints, not by any real determination to get to grips with the problems of rural transport. I do not blame the Under-Secretary for that. He has been moderate and helpful, although occasionally he has dived into ritualistic, partisan diatribes, which did not seem quite right coming from him. I felt that he was indulging in those matters to please the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other fellow Members of the Manifesto Group.
I think that the Minister would have gone further than he went if he had had the opportunity to do so. I fear that the Government will not give the Minister the chance to reform the licensing system. The only way to achieve a major change is to have a change of Government.
One of the greatest ironies is that the White Paper pre-empts the Bill. The Bill is concerned with fairly minor experiments. It will take two or three years before we get the results of those experiments. Many hon. Members say that the time for experimentation is over. The Government say "No. We must work

slowly towards changes in the licensing system to see whether they are necessary." Yet we now have a White Paper that states that it is clear from the early stages of the experiments that there is already a case for more general modifications of the licensing laws. That is a splendid transformation. The light has at last dawned. If we understand that before we conduct the experiments, what is the use of going ahead with them?
I hope that the experiments will go ahead and produce interesting evidence. However, I feel that this is a case of too little, too late. The crisis in transport in rural areas has overtaken the Bill. The Government stand indicted of three and a half wasted years. They should have acted sooner. To come forward with the proposition that they now see a general need for modifying the licensing laws when they abandoned a similar proposal three and a half years ago is a devastating indictment. This puny Bill makes little or no amends for the failures of the last three and a half years.

12.24 a.m.

Mr. Robert Banks: I intervene briefly at this late hour. First, I should declare an interest. In my weekend mail I discovered a document which invited comments on an experiment in local transportation. I now find myself encompassed as a human guinea pig in an experiment to be undertaken under the terms of the Bill.
I should explain that my house lies three miles from Ripon. The experiment which has been devised in advance of Parliament giving its approval to the Bill, is for a taxi service to operate to draw people who require transport to Ripon from the area in which I live towards the neighbouring village of Masham. Masham lies some seven miles north of Ripon in the opposite direction to that in which I would wish to go if travelling to Ripon. Having got to Masham, the service would connect with a bus service to Ripon and a further nine miles of travelling from Masham to Ripon would complete a journey of 16 miles and land me in Ripon. It will be an interesting experiment, but the document invites comment and no doubt I shall be making my comments on it.
While we recognise the Minister's burning enthusiasm and zeal in getting these


experiments under way, is he not jumping the gun, since Parliament has as yet not passed the Bill? Expenditure is being incurred in setting up this arrangement in advance of Parliament having passed the Bill and that would appear to me to be overstepping the mark. I hope that the Minister will explain how this decision was made without the authority of Parliament.
I hope that he will confirm that these experiments must be designed to consider the cost effectiveness of some of the journeys. Certainly the three-mile journey from Ripon is reasonable enough, but if the service is to take a round-about route of 16 miles in order to get to Ripon, that underlines the need for the experiments to be considered carefully in view of the fuel consumption and subsidy entailed.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. Adley: The Bill has been a tug-of-war between the Labour Party's attitude that Whitehall knows best and the Conservative Party's attitude of setting the people free—the Liberal Party being absent, as usual. My notes for this speech were written beforehand, confident that the Liberal Members would be their usual invisible selves when there was work to be done. Transport is important to local people, but I suppose that it is not a glamorous and headline-catching subject, so we should not express surprise at the Liberal absence.
I am sorry that the Minister did not complete his undertaking about the Conservative amendment moved by me in Committee on 16th June. I ask him only to have another look at column 93 of the Committee proceedings for that date and to decide whether what he said tonight is in accordance with the undertaking he gave then.
We regret that in Committee the Government resisted the removal of the restrictions on the size of vehicles. That was indicative of their attitude throughout the Bill. Like the Kremlin, the Labour Government are afraid of freedom. However, the Conservative amendments have transformed this small Bill and we look forward to transport committees of county councils releasing their pent-up enthusiasm for experiments when they realise the opportunities that the Bill opens up for them.
The Bill started as a crumb. Thanks to the Conservative Party we now have half a loaf. Half a loaf is better than none, and so we support the Third Reading.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Horam: By leave of the House, may I speak again to inform the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) that the money for the schemes will come out of the Department's research budget and that it will be a quite separate matter. Indeed, it is very small in amount.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to go on making speeches at 12.30 a.m. to make yet more party political points? There are a number of hon. Members, people in the Public Gallery and a number of other persons here who are concerned with the next debate. I respectfully ask the Chair whether it is in order for the Minister to make a speech.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Mr. Temple-Morris rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall deal with one point of order at a time. The point of order that has been raised by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) makes it clear that the Minister does not have the permission of the House to make a second speech. I therefore must put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

BRITISH FIRMS (TRADE WITH ISRAEL)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: My debate has been slightly more accelerated than I had expected it to be a few seconds ago, and I ought to be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
During the past 30 years the Arab States in conflict with Israel have pursued a policy of economic boycott against that State. In furtherance of that


policy, substantial pressure has been brought upon British business men, as well as business men in other countries, to cease to trade with Israel to make that boycott more effective. There has been no doubt about the policy of successive British Governments. They have condemned and deplored the economic boycott against Israel. There has been much criticism of this Government and their predecessor, in that while they have condemned the boycott they have been prepared to tolerate it and have not taken action to make sure that British firms are relieved of the pressure that is being applied to them.
I wish tonight to concentrate on a limited area where the present Government do not merely tolerate the boycott against Israel by Arab States, and its effect on British firms, but act in such a way as to further—however unintentionally—the application of the boycott. I refer particularly to the Foreign Office, which permits its officials to authenticate the discriminatory and negative certificates of origin that are required by certain Arab Governments, particularly Iraq.
Certificates of origin are a perfectly innocuous and normal part of trading relations and in many respects they are essential to the whole business of trade between countries. The particular point with which I am now concerned is not to do with certificates of origin as normally applied where an exporter has to certify the origin of the goods—the country from which the goods he wishes to export originated. However, there are also negative or discriminatory certificates of origin, in other words, certificates that are required only for the Arab boycott. Exporters must certify not where the goods came from; this must certify the goods to ensure or guarantee that they in no way directly or indirectly originated in Israel.
Normally the British chambers of commerce, as well as those in other countries, deal with the authentication of trading documents. However, to their credit, the British chambers of commerce have refused throughout the controversy to authenticate discriminatory or negative certificates of origin, on the ground that they have nothing to do with the limited objectives of trade but are to do only with a boycott that is not part of the policy of the British Government.
Given that honourable decision, it is all the more regrettable that the British Foreign Office should permit its officials to authenticate discriminatory certificates of origin and to ensure thereby the success, or partial success, of this form of economic boycott. It is, perhaps, important to recognise the scale of the operation. When I first asked the Foreign Office through a parliamentary Question, about the number of discriminatory certificates of origin on which the signatures were authenticated by the Foreign Office I was told that the information was not available. However, when I conducted correspondence with the Minister of State and the Foreign Secretary, I was told that among a random sample of 2,000 export documents in 1976, 286 referred to export documents for Iraq of the nature of those that we are discussing tonight.
Given that I was informed at the same time that the random sample of 2,000 documents represented 5 per cent. of the total number of such documents authenticated by the Foreign Office, it is not unreasonable to assume—I am sure that the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong—that we are talking of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 documents required for the purpose of export to Iraq—documents authenticated by the Foreign Office, as required by the Government of Iraq. Therefore, we are not dealing with an insignificant number of export documents, we are talking of between 5,000 and 6,000 documents per year, simply with regard to exports to Iraq—discriminatory certificates of certain origin which the Foreign Office authenticates as to the signatures on the documents.
I understand from the replies that I have received that the Foreign Office in no way disputes the facts as I aver them. What it insists upon is that in authenticating the signature of the notary public that appears on a discriminatory certificate of origin it is in no way approving or condoning the purpose of the document. The Minister of State, in correspondence with me, has assured me that in no way is the signature of the Foreign Office official on such a document to be taken as approving of the contents of the document. He goes on to say that the Foreign Office does not look into the


background of the document, and that its sole concern is with the signature that appears on it and whether it is in order for the Foreign Office to authenticate that signature.
I believe that such a justification, or attempted justification, is disingenuous at best and naive at worst. I do not believe that the Foreign Office or, indeed, any Government Department, can legitimately argue that it is appropriate to provide Government facilities irrespective of whether the purpose for which those facilities are required is in the public interest or in pursuit of Government public policy. Let me give one example. A few months ago we had some controversy about a sporting link with South Africa. Having failed to dissuade British citizens who wished to indulge in such sporting activities, the Government announced that they would not provide any official facilities that might be used during the sporting occasion in question. In other words, despite a lack of any illegality or any unconstitutionality in the activity taking place, because the Government reckoned that this activity was contrary to public policy they refused to provide Government facilities for the activity.
All we are arguing is that, given that the Government deplore and condemn the boycott, the least that can be expected of them is that they withdraw the use of Foreign Office facilities for authentication of these documents. We can go beyond this because the Minister of State and other Ministers in the Foreign Office suggested that in no circumstances would the Government ever look beyond the signature on a document and in no circumstances would they ever consider the purposes for which the document was required or the nature of the document. However, in a letter dated 28th March of this year the Minister of State, who is to reply to the debate, said:
Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials only refuse to certify the signature and seal of a document in rare cases when illegality or fraud is suspected or the document has been signed by a person whose official capacity is not recognised by Her Majesty's Government, for example, an official of a régime which has not been recognised de jure."
That paragraph is of considerable importance, because it accepts, for the first time as far as I am aware, that the Government do apply certain criteria

before they are prepared to append the signature of a Foreign Office official to discriminatory certificates or any certificate of origin or other documents presented to them.
According to the Minister of State in his letter, if it is believed that fraud or illegality may be involved, the Foreign Office will refuse to authenticate the signature, even if the signature is not fraudulent or believed to be illegal in any way. In other words, in certain circumstances the Government are prepared to look beyond the signature, to look at the nature of the document and, if it is believed to be or suspected of being illegal or fraudulent, to refuse to provide Foreign Office facilities. If the Government are prepared to look beyond the signature on these matters it would be a simple matter of practical convenience that they should also look to discover whether the business of the document is to pursue a policy or objective acceptable to them and, if it is not, to deny the facility requested at that time.
I must say, again, that in correspondence with me, the present Foreign Secretary, who was then Minister of State, on 25th January this year, in defending the policy of the Foreign Office and in explaining that it was not approving of the contents of these discriminatory certificates of origin but merely authenticating the signatures on them, went on to say that this procedure of legalising documents for presentation in a foreign country is fully in accordance with international practice. The implication in that statement was that the present policy of the Foreign Office, far from being objectionable, was a policy that may be found in many other Western countries and is perfectly normal and perfectly unobjectionable. I am afraid that in so far as that implication was made it was incorrect and unjustified, because a number of countries refuse to allow officials of their Foreign Offices or State Departments to provide this sort of facility.
The Dutch Government, for example, not only refuse to allow their officials to authenticate such documents but refuse to allow notaries in the Netherlands to participate in any way in discriminatory certificates of origin.
Even more significant, the State Department of the United States of America


has been very explicit in this matter. Perhaps I may quote from the regulation of the State Department with regard to authentication of documents. The regulations state as follows:
The Department will not certify a document when it has good reason to believe that the certification is desired for an unlawful or improper purpose. It is therefore the duty of the Authentication Officer to examine not only the document which the Department is aked to authenticate, but also the fundamental document to which previous seals or other certifications may have been affixed by other authorities. The Authentication Officer shall request such additional information as may be necessary to establish that the requested authentication will serve the interests of justice and is not contrary to public policy".
It goes on to say,
In accordance with section 3 … of the Export Administration Act of 1969 … documents which have the effect of furthering or supporting the restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by foreign countries against countries friendly to the United States shall be considered contrary to public policy for the purposes of these regulations".
In other words, the United States, as well as the Netherlands and one or two other countries, has explicitly forbidden its officials to participate in the authentication of documents when those documents are required for discriminatory purposes, for purposes in no way concerned with the legitimate interests of trade, and indeed, where those documents are required for a purpose contrary to the Government's official policy.
All that I am suggesting in so far as the United Kingdom Government are concerned is that as a Government who have, quite rightly, deplored and condemned the boycott themselves, even if they are not prepared to take action to protect British business men from the boycott, as is presently being taken by the Governments of the United States, the Netherlands, Canada and France, the very least that we can expect of the British Government is that they do not positively facilitate the furtherance of the boycott. Indeed, in this one area, we can say, I am afraid, with absolute justification, that the Government do not merely fail to act but positively act in such a way that can only help the furtherance of an economic boycott against a country with which we have friendly relations and which is at present at the

sharp end of an economic boycott that we deplore.
I hope that the Minister of State will not simply go over the assurances about the Government's dislike of the boycott. I do not doubt that the Government dislike it. What we are concerned with is whether the Government are prepared to follow the example set by our Western allies and ensure that in no way will the facilities of the British Foreign Office be used in any way to continue a boycott which we deplore and condemn.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) for this debate and I thank both him and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for sparing me a moment of the time.
I rise to express the support of a very considerable number of hon. Members on the Government side of the House for the views that have been so eloquently put forward. This is not a party matter. Unfortunately, the policy that the present Government have pursued is one that they inherited from their predecessors.
I have lobbied a series of Foreign Secretaries, of successive Governments. Each in turn has trotted out the same ridiculous rubbish about the authentication of a document being merely an authentication of a signature and having no effect in so far as the approval of the document is concerned. The authentication of this document is active connivance in a disgraceful activity which has been roundly and frequently condemned by the Foreign Secretary. The Government are regarded as active accomplices by both the proponents and the opponents of the boycott. They are not merely clapping a telescope to a blind eye but holding it clearly in place.
Rubber stamps have their uses but they are dangerous weapons in a trade war. In this case they are used to put an imprimatur on an international impropriety. They should be burned.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take this opportunity not merely to condemn once again the Arab boycott but also to say as a start that the Government will cease giving any seal of approval to these thoroughly improper and disgraceful documents.

12.47 a.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): I should like to compliment the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) on initiating the debate. I have been aware for some time of his deep and real anxiety about this matter. Matters relating to the Arab boycott are a subject of genuine and widespread public concern. However, misconceptions about the boycott and in particular about the Government's attitude towards it still exist. I shall give an example. To judge from the correspondence that I see, many firms and individuals seem to believe that the very act of trading with Israel may in itself render a company liable to be blacklisted by the Arabs. On the contrary, the boycott does not appear to interfere with exports—other than of war or strategic materials—to Israel by firms in non-Arab countries. But firms which misunderstand the position may needlessly be denying themselves the chance of doing valuable business in Israel.
Another widespread misconception concerns the Foreign and Commonwealth Officer's certification service. I shall deal with this in a moment. I welcome this evening's short debate as an opportunity to put the record straight.
First, I should like to make two small observations on the subject of the debate as the hon. Gentleman has set it down. He referred to the "Foreign Office". I hope he will not mind my pointing out that there has been no separate Foreign Office since October 1968 when it merged with the Commonwealth Office.
That is a matter about which we feel strongly.
The hon. Member refers to the Foreign Office's policy on the boycott. The Government's policy towards the boycott is indivisible. Various Departments of State assume primary responsibility for different aspects of that policy. But there is no separate Foreign and Commonwealth Office policy or Department of Trade policy. There is only the Government's policy. In practice there is close contact and co-ordination between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade which assumes primary responsibility for matters concerning the impact of the boycott on British companies, both individually and in general. The two Departments do not

differ in their approach to the problems with which the boycott faces us.
The Government's basic approach to the boycott has frequently been stated. It is that we oppose and deplore all trade boycotts which do not have international support and authority. Ministers have repeatedly stressed this in the most categorical language in the House and elsewhere. I apologise if I am telling the House something it already knows. But if I am to explain clearly the Government's attitude towards the boycott, it is important that there should be no misunderstanding about this basic and fundamental principle.
None the less, the boycott is a fact of life which has been with us now for nearly 30 years and with which British exporters must deal. How companies act in specific cases must be a matter for their commercial judgment. This has been the accepted policy of successive Governments. The Government's role it seems to me is—while making clear its abhorrence of the boycott—and I underline that word—to do nothing that would further increase the difficulties of British firms dealing with the Middle East. Our aim as a Government is and must be to help expand British exports throughout the world. The boycott is an obstacle, a highly objectionable obstacle, to this, but one which we must help companies to surmount.
We wish it were possible for British exporters to trade entirely freely with all countries of the Middle East and we hope that negotiations for a lasting and just peace in the area will bring this about. But until that hoped-for goal is achieved, the Government's efforts must be directed to ensuring that British firms can conduct their trade with the minimum of hindrance.
I now turn to the subject of the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices certification service, and I know that many hon. Members are uneasy about this. Certification is a common international practice, and the procedures which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office follows in certifying signatures or seals on public documents are laid down internationally. There may be some variation from country to country in how these procedures are applied to various categories of document, but the procedures are, as I have said, internationally established


and are set out in the 1961 Hague Convention for the Abolition of Legalisation. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office conforms to these procedures.
Because the process of certification may be unfamiliar, it may help if I explain in rather more detail what it is and why it should be necessary. In many foreign countries, export and other documents are not acceptable unless they are signed by an official. These countries include many Arab States, but the Arabs are not the only people to require documents to be officially certified; nor are they the majority of such countries. In order to prepare documentation for its exports to such a country, a British firm arranges for the signature of a competent employee on the documents in question to be attested by a notary or chamber of commerce official. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office then certify the authenticity of the signature of the notary or chamber of commerce official, the capacity in which he has signed the document, and where appropriate the identity of the seal or mark which the document bears. This is necessary because the notary or chamber of commerce official's signature is not known in the foreign country in question. Indeed, in the case of Iraq and a number of other Arab States which are not parties to the Hague Convention, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's certificate is itself not recognised until it has been countersigned by the appropriate Arab consul in London.
Hon. Members may consider this a very bureaucratic and time-consuming procedure. I agree with them. It is our policy to try to reduce the need for certification of documents wherever possible. But we have to recognise that if we wish to do business with other countries, we have no alternative but to conform to their requirements in this matter of export documentation.

Mr. Rifkind: The Minister talks about certificates of origin. Will he accept that the only discriminatory certficates of origin are those required in pursuit of the Arab boycott and that the British chambers of commerce have refused to associate themselves with authenticating these documents? If that is the view taken by the chambers of commerce, why do the Government take a different view?

Mr. Judd: I was coming to the question of the chambers of commerce. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. I have double-checked on this, and I have here at the Dispatch Box cases showing direct evidence that chambers of commerce have in fact signed such documents. So it is not true that chambers of commerce do not do it.

Mr. Rifkind: Mr. Rifkind rose—

Mr. Judd: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to continue? I shall deal with the matter. I have so far described the process of certification as it applies to all documents and all countries.
It is the practice of most Arab States to require firms which do business with them to provide documents to show that they are not in breach of the boycott regulations. Such documents may be presented to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for certification When this happens, it is only the authenticity of the signature of the notary or chamber of commerce official which is then certified by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in accordance with our standing procedures. I have some here signed by chambers of commerce. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office takes no account of or responsibility for the content of the document in question. We do not discriminate between documents of different classes, origins or destinations. Thus, the performance of this service is basically a technical measure to facilitate the flow of exports and in no way implies that the Government or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office condone or endorse the boycott.
Critics of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's practice in this respect sometimes claim that it may nevertheless be widely misinterpreted as officially condoning or conniving at the boycott. Although I do not question their sincerity of purpose, I ask such critics to consider at least the possibility that they themselves may be partially responsible for giving currency to this misconception. Certainly, Ministers and officials take every opportunity to make clear that this is, indeed, a misconception and that we in no way support the boycott.
As I have already said, we have repeatedly stated our opposition to the boycott in categorical terms. I have done


so tonight. I have also noted numerous instances when Ministers have stated the position on certification in reply to Questions in the House. Most recently my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary stated it in reply to a supplementary question from the hon. Member for Pentlands on 15th June.
In many countries this process is referred to as "legalisation". Because we want the public to be quite clear that our service adds nothing to the validity of the documents in question, and since the word "legalisation" might in English imply that some validation has taken place, we preferred to use the term "certification" instead.
Certification is carried out in respect of some 40,000 documents a year. These cover a wide variety of subjects apart from the boycott. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not keep copies of these documents, nor records of their contents. Those who are concerned about economy in Government will be relieved to hear this. Since the Foreign and Commonwealth Office takes no responsibility for the content of the documents in question, it would hardly be appropriate to keep such records. But a statistical sample of 2,000 of these documents last year revealed that 60 per cent. of them related to exports to some 62 countries, including Israel. Of this 60 per cent., less than half—in other words, less than 30 per cent. of all the documents processed—related to exports to the Arab states.
As I said earlier, countries vary in the application of certification procedures to various categories of documents. There is no common practice, even within the European Community on the certification of boycott documents. However, our practice is broadly the same as that of most other Western European countries, including France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands.
Having heard the report of a broadcast this morning, I was sufficiently concerned, because of my respect for the hon. Gentleman, to check today the situation with our embassy in the Netherlands. Our embassy has confirmed that the Netherlands Foreign Ministry still authenticates signatures on Dutch chamber of commerce boycott documents. In other words,

Dutch practice is exactly the same as ours. In Canada, the Department of External Affairs countersigns signatures on export documents, including boycott documents.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials refuse to certify a document only when they do not recognise the signature or the appointment of the official who signed it or when they suspect some fraud or illegality. In fact, since within the legal system as it operates it would be totally inappropriate to scrutinise them in detail, fraud or illegality can prove difficult to detect, though some cases have come to light.
It is, of course, not illegal for British companies to provide the boycott-related declarations required under the import regulations of Arab States. Nor, with one exception, is it illegal, so far as I know, anywhere else in the world for firms to decide their response to the boycott in the light of their own commercial judgment. The one exception is the United States of America. We shall naturally study the practical effects of the recent United States measures, in due course, with close attention. But to be realistic about it, they do not necessarily provide a model for us. It is important to bear in mind that the United States economy is far less dependent on exports than our own or that of any Western European country. Were we convinced that it would be desirable to refuse to signatures on boycott-related documents, there would be administrative problems, but they would not in themselves be allowed to stand in our way.
However, our practice in certifying the vast number of documents constantly presented to us is based on principle rather than expediency. We see ourselves as performing a technical legal service for British firms in their export drive. To refuse certification in certain cases would simply make life more difficult for them in dealing with important markets. It is impossible to make any meaningful assessment of the likely consequences of such a refusal for our exports to the Arab world, now running at an annual rate of £2½ billion, but they would hardly be likely to be beneficial to this country. We would not be justified in assuming that Arab States would simply agree to bend


their import documentation requirements to accommodate us. If British firms found it difficult or impossible to comply with those requirements, there would be few sectors in which Arab States could not

obtain substitutes for British exports from other suppliers.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock.